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 87 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133913; 14588-4_0087 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 - 87 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/873133913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 86 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133910; 14588-4_0086 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 - 86 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/873133910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 39 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133596; 14588-4_0039 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 - 39 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/873133596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 27 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133585; 14588-4_0027 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 - 27 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/873133585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 26 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133580; 14588-4_0026 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 - 26 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/873133580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 20 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133575; 14588-4_0020 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 - 20 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/873133575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 19 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133571; 14588-4_0019 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 - 19 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/873133571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 15 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133565; 14588-4_0015 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 - 15 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/873133565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 10 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133560; 14588-4_0010 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 - 10 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/873133560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 143 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133227; 14588-4_0143 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 - 143 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/873133227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 142 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133214; 14588-4_0142 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 - 142 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/873133214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 137 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133202; 14588-4_0137 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 - 137 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/873133202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 9 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133188; 14588-4_0009 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 - 9 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/873133188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 135 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133180; 14588-4_0135 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 - 135 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/873133180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 125 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133151; 14588-4_0125 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 - 125 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/873133151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 4 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133145; 14588-4_0004 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 - 4 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/873133145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 124 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133140; 14588-4_0124 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 - 124 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/873133140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 2 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133137; 14588-4_0002 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 - 2 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/873133137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 3 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133135; 14588-4_0003 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 - 3 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/873133135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 116 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133098; 14588-4_0116 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 - 116 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/873133098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 115 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133077; 14588-4_0115 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 - 115 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/873133077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 109 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133049; 14588-4_0109 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 - 109 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/873133049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 106 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133034; 14588-4_0106 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 - 106 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/873133034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 105 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133021; 14588-4_0105 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 - 105 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/873133021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 101 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132993; 14588-4_0101 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 - 101 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/873132993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 73 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132792; 14588-4_0073 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 - 73 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/873132792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 37 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132743; 14588-4_0037 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 - 37 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/873132743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 36 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132724; 14588-4_0036 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 - 36 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/873132724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 67 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132723; 14588-4_0067 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 - 67 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/873132723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 34 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132710; 14588-4_0034 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 - 34 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/873132710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 64 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132708; 14588-4_0064 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 - 64 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/873132708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 61 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132700; 14588-4_0061 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 - 61 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/873132700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 33 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132698; 14588-4_0033 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 - 33 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/873132698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 60 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132685; 14588-4_0060 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 - 60 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/873132685?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 14 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132650; 14588-4_0014 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 - 14 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/873132650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 13 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132635; 14588-4_0013 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 - 13 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/873132635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 141 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132622; 14588-4_0141 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 - 141 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/873132622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 139 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132576; 14588-4_0139 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 - 139 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/873132576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 131 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132511; 14588-4_0131 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 - 131 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/873132511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 130 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132480; 14588-4_0130 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 - 130 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/873132480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 120 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132443; 14588-4_0120 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 - 120 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/873132443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 156 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132342; 14588-4_0156 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 - 156 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/873132342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 107 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132332; 14588-4_0107 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 - 107 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/873132332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 155 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132319; 14588-4_0155 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 - 155 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/873132319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 74 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132298; 14588-4_0074 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 - 74 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/873132298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 65 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132243; 14588-4_0065 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 - 65 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/873132243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 145 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132236; 14588-4_0145 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 - 145 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/873132236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 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 122 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132177; 14588-4_0122 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 - 122 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/873132177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 103 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132127; 14588-4_0103 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 - 103 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/873132127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 43 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131931; 14588-4_0043 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 - 43 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/873131931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 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 146 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131820; 14588-4_0146 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 - 146 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/873131820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 111 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131794; 14588-4_0111 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 - 111 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/873131794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 100 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131768; 14588-4_0100 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 - 100 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/873131768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 99 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131753; 14588-4_0099 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 - 99 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/873131753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 69 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131670; 14588-4_0069 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 - 69 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/873131670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 58 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131642; 14588-4_0058 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 - 58 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/873131642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 1 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131641; 14588-4_0001 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 - 1 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/873131641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 11 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131503; 14588-4_0011 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 - 11 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/873131503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 149 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131475; 14588-4_0149 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 - 149 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/873131475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 148 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131441; 14588-4_0148 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 - 148 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/873131441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 127 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131421; 14588-4_0127 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 - 127 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/873131421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 126 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131401; 14588-4_0126 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 - 126 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/873131401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 132 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131182; 14588-4_0132 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 - 132 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/873131182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 44 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130942; 14588-4_0044 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 - 44 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/873130942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 18 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130918; 14588-4_0018 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 - 18 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/873130918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 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 160 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130159; 14588-4_0160 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 - 160 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/873130159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 85 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130117; 14588-4_0085 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 - 85 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/873130117?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 84 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130081; 14588-4_0084 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 - 84 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/873130081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 82 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129986; 14588-4_0082 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 - 82 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/873129986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 96 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129980; 14588-4_0096 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 - 96 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/873129980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 47 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129964; 14588-4_0047 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 - 47 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/873129964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 95 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129939; 14588-4_0095 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 - 95 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/873129939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 51 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129928; 14588-4_0051 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 - 51 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/873129928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 48 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129781; 14588-4_0048 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 - 48 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/873129781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 45 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129677; 14588-4_0045 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 - 45 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/873129677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 92 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129519; 14588-4_0092 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 - 92 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/873129519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 7 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873127864; 14588-4_0007 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 - 7 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/873127864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - JOUR T1 - Woodland salamander response to two prescribed fires in the central Appalachians AN - 787110618; 13512642 AB - a- The response of woodland salamanders to prescribed fires to enhance conditions for oak establishment was measured using coverboard sampling. a- Detection probabilities and numbers observed were highly variable, but two prescribed fires seemed to have equivocal effects on three species: mountain dusky salamander, red-backed salamander and slimy salamander. a- In seasons immediately after fire, salamander numbers increased under coverboards presumably because leaf litter had been reduced. Using coverboard arrays, we monitored woodland salamanders on the Fernow Experimental Forest in the central Appalachian Mountains, West Virginia, USA prior to and following two prescribed fires in mixed oak (Quercus spp.) forest stands. Treatments were burn plots on upper slopes or lower slopes fenced to prevent white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) herbivory or control plots that were unfenced and unburned. Most of the 7 species we observed were the mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus ocropheaus), red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus) and slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosis). Significant population responses were difficult to interpret with numerous treatment and year interactions. Results largely were equivocal. We found no change in woodland salamander assemblage prior to burning or afterwards. There were few differences in adult to juvenile ratios of salamanders among treatments. Still, a priori contrasts of mountain dusky salamanders and red-backed salamander counts corrected for detection probability were greater under coverboards in the 2 years monitored after both prescribed fires had occurred than before burning or in unburned controls. This suggests that these species responded to the reduced leaf litter on the forest floor by utilizing coverboards more. Similarly, the three predominate species of salamanders also were more numerous under coverboards in plots subjected to deer herbivory with less subsequent forest floor vegetation as compared to those burned plots that were fenced. Our observations would suggest that woodland salamanders somewhat are tolerant of two prescribed fires within close temporal proximity. However, because woodland salamanders can be significantly reduced following timber harvest, continued research is needed to fully understand impacts of fire as a pre-harvest management tool in central Appalachian forests. JF - Forest Ecology and Management AU - Ford, WMark AU - Rodrigue, Jane L AU - Rowan, Ella L AU - Castleberry, Steven B AU - Schuler, Thomas M AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Lab, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, United States Y1 - 2010/08/15/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Aug 15 SP - 1003 EP - 1009 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 260 IS - 6 SN - 0378-1127, 0378-1127 KW - Environment Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts KW - Central Appalachians KW - Plethodontidae KW - Prescribed fire KW - Woodland salamander KW - Odocoileus virginianus KW - Burns KW - Desmognathus KW - Forest floor KW - Forest management KW - Herbivory KW - Forests KW - Mountains KW - Plethodon KW - Caudata KW - herbivory KW - Quercus KW - Plethodon cinereus KW - leaf litter KW - Sampling KW - deer KW - Fires KW - salamanders KW - burning KW - USA, West Virginia KW - Leaf litter KW - forest floor KW - Burning KW - USA, West Virginia, Fernow Experimental Forest KW - ENA 13:Population Planning & Control KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/787110618?accountid=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=Forest+Ecology+and+Management&rft.atitle=Woodland+salamander+response+to+two+prescribed+fires+in+the+central+Appalachians&rft.au=Ford%2C+WMark%3BRodrigue%2C+Jane+L%3BRowan%2C+Ella+L%3BCastleberry%2C+Steven+B%3BSchuler%2C+Thomas+M&rft.aulast=Ford&rft.aufirst=WMark&rft.date=2010-08-15&rft.volume=260&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1003&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Forest+Ecology+and+Management&rft.issn=03781127&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.foreco.2010.06.022 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-04-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Burns; Mountains; Forest management; Forest floor; Leaf litter; Fires; Herbivory; Sampling; Burning; herbivory; forest floor; salamanders; Forests; leaf litter; burning; deer; Odocoileus virginianus; Desmognathus; Plethodon; Caudata; Quercus; Plethodon cinereus; USA, West Virginia; USA, West Virginia, Fernow Experimental Forest DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.022 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIVER VALLEY INTERMODAL FACILITIES, POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2006). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - RIVER VALLEY INTERMODAL FACILITIES, POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2006). AN - 873133492; 14572-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of an intermodal facility for the City of Russellvile and the Arkansas River Valley (ARV) region on an 800-acre site in and on the banks of the Arkansas River in Pope County, Arkansas is proposed. The River Valley Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority, the sponsoring agency, wishes to promote economic development and job creation in the ARV by serving existing industry and providing services necessary to attract new business and industry to the area. The mechanism by which the Authority proposes to promote economic development is to construct and operate a multi-modal transportation complex in the ARV, which includes Conway, Johnson, Logan, Perry, Pope, and Yell counties. The intermodal facilities would be located in the river valley with access to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System via a slackwater harbor on the Arkansas River with dockside loading and unloading capabilities. The facility would provide a connection to the Tulsa Port of Catoosa in eastern Oklahoma via the Arkansas and Verdigris rivers and would provide a connection to the Mississippi River, thus allowing ready access to the U.S. inland waterway system. Access to the national railroad grid would be provided through the Class I Union Pacific Railroad and/or though The Class III short line Dardanelle Russellville Railroad. The intermodal facilities would also include local roadway access to Interstate 40. Ancillary services at the facility would include on-site rail/truck transfers, truck/water transfers, rail/water transfers, freight tracking, a foreign trade subzone, warehousing, distribution, consolidation, just-in-time inventory, and material storage capabilities. This supplemental draft EIS responds to comments on the 2006 draft EIS and presents new and updated information. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated. The Red Alternative would consist of an 832-acre tract located near Arkansas River Mile (ARM) 203. Most of this site would be within the floodplain of the Arkansas River and a levee system would be required to protect the proposed facilities. Under the Green Alternative, an 882-acre tract located near ARM 203 would be utilized and levee protection would be required. Some high quality wetlands, which would be impacted under the Red Alternative, would be avoided. Additionally, the levee would be set back to protect the forested riparian corridor and to provide a buffer between the site and the river. The Purple Alternative would consist of a 742-acre tract of rolling terrain located near ARM 220 along the north shore which would involve minimal impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The cost estimate range for the proposed intermodal complex alternatives is between $10 million and $30 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed complex would provide intermodal transportation access in a region characterized by a strong manufacturing orientation, with a higher percentage of the workforce in manufacturing jobs than the national average, strong regional educational facilities, and a history of public support for economic development. Persons educated at Arkansas Tech University, the University of Arkansas (Morrilton), and the Vo-Tech School at Russellville High School would provide a steady flow of highly trained workers for the intermodal facility and related ancillary services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the intermodal facility site and ancillary rail, road, and maritime connections would displace wetlands, and upland habitat, as well as farmland and forested land. Facility operations would create long-term potential for minor releases of chemicals and fuels. Depending on the action alternative selected, the project would displace six to 15 residences and one business. The Purple Alternative could adversely impact some recreational opportunities on Lake Dardanelle. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0272D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100318, 732 pages and maps, August 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: Federal Aid Project No. HPP-0268(2) KW - Barges KW - Community Facilities KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Structures KW - Highways KW - Industrial Districts KW - Industrial Parks KW - International Programs KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Arkansas River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIVER+VALLEY+INTERMODAL+FACILITIES%2C+POPE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2006%29.&rft.title=RIVER+VALLEY+INTERMODAL+FACILITIES%2C+POPE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIVER VALLEY INTERMODAL FACILITIES, POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2006). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - RIVER VALLEY INTERMODAL FACILITIES, POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2006). AN - 873133481; 14572-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of an intermodal facility for the City of Russellvile and the Arkansas River Valley (ARV) region on an 800-acre site in and on the banks of the Arkansas River in Pope County, Arkansas is proposed. The River Valley Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority, the sponsoring agency, wishes to promote economic development and job creation in the ARV by serving existing industry and providing services necessary to attract new business and industry to the area. The mechanism by which the Authority proposes to promote economic development is to construct and operate a multi-modal transportation complex in the ARV, which includes Conway, Johnson, Logan, Perry, Pope, and Yell counties. The intermodal facilities would be located in the river valley with access to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System via a slackwater harbor on the Arkansas River with dockside loading and unloading capabilities. The facility would provide a connection to the Tulsa Port of Catoosa in eastern Oklahoma via the Arkansas and Verdigris rivers and would provide a connection to the Mississippi River, thus allowing ready access to the U.S. inland waterway system. Access to the national railroad grid would be provided through the Class I Union Pacific Railroad and/or though The Class III short line Dardanelle Russellville Railroad. The intermodal facilities would also include local roadway access to Interstate 40. Ancillary services at the facility would include on-site rail/truck transfers, truck/water transfers, rail/water transfers, freight tracking, a foreign trade subzone, warehousing, distribution, consolidation, just-in-time inventory, and material storage capabilities. This supplemental draft EIS responds to comments on the 2006 draft EIS and presents new and updated information. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated. The Red Alternative would consist of an 832-acre tract located near Arkansas River Mile (ARM) 203. Most of this site would be within the floodplain of the Arkansas River and a levee system would be required to protect the proposed facilities. Under the Green Alternative, an 882-acre tract located near ARM 203 would be utilized and levee protection would be required. Some high quality wetlands, which would be impacted under the Red Alternative, would be avoided. Additionally, the levee would be set back to protect the forested riparian corridor and to provide a buffer between the site and the river. The Purple Alternative would consist of a 742-acre tract of rolling terrain located near ARM 220 along the north shore which would involve minimal impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The cost estimate range for the proposed intermodal complex alternatives is between $10 million and $30 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed complex would provide intermodal transportation access in a region characterized by a strong manufacturing orientation, with a higher percentage of the workforce in manufacturing jobs than the national average, strong regional educational facilities, and a history of public support for economic development. Persons educated at Arkansas Tech University, the University of Arkansas (Morrilton), and the Vo-Tech School at Russellville High School would provide a steady flow of highly trained workers for the intermodal facility and related ancillary services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the intermodal facility site and ancillary rail, road, and maritime connections would displace wetlands, and upland habitat, as well as farmland and forested land. Facility operations would create long-term potential for minor releases of chemicals and fuels. Depending on the action alternative selected, the project would displace six to 15 residences and one business. The Purple Alternative could adversely impact some recreational opportunities on Lake Dardanelle. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0272D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100318, 732 pages and maps, August 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: Federal Aid Project No. HPP-0268(2) KW - Barges KW - Community Facilities KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Structures KW - Highways KW - Industrial Districts KW - Industrial Parks KW - International Programs KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Arkansas River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIVER+VALLEY+INTERMODAL+FACILITIES%2C+POPE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2006%29.&rft.title=RIVER+VALLEY+INTERMODAL+FACILITIES%2C+POPE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 14, OWATONNA TO DODGE CENTER, STEELE AND DODGE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - HIGHWAY 14, OWATONNA TO DODGE CENTER, STEELE AND DODGE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133465; 14574-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 19 miles of Trunk Highway (TH) 14 from the existing four-lane bypass of Dodge Center to the intersection of TH 14 and Interstate 35 (I-35) in Steele and Dodge counties, Minnesota is proposed. TH 14 is a major east-west highway providing important links between the interregional corridors of I-35 in Owatonna, Highway 52 in Rochester, and Highway 169 in Mankato. The corridor is characterized by growing traffic levels, particularly truck traffic levels, reduced average travel speeds, limited passing opportunities, and significant safety issues. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic it carries. The proposed improvements would include the construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled freeway through the entire study corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would reconstruct TH 14 on the existing alignment, implementing the design described above. Alternative 3 would result in the construction of the four-lane upgrade partially on the existing alignment and partly on new alignment. Both alternatives include an option to provide a southern bypass around Claremont. Alternative 3, the South Bypass Alignment with Claremont Bypass Option 4 is the preferred alternative. Preferred interchange design options are a modified folded diamond interchange at County Road 45 in the City of Owatonna and a standard diamond at the existing Highway 14/County Road 43 intersection in Havana Township. Cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $151.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded facility would maintain mobility under future traffic conditions, improve travel safety, enhance system continuity by completing a four-lane segment connecting two contiguous four lane sections, and foster economic growth along the corridor. Improved movement of traffic along the corridor could increase use of transit options in the region and improve the efficiency of transit connections. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 578 acres of right-of-way and would displace 17 residences, 600 acres of prime or unique farmland, and 15.9 acres of wetlands. The project would impact three properties which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The highway would add 123 acres of new impervious surface to the corridor, increasing roadway runoff and adding greater levels of pollutants to receiving surface flows. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed Minnesota standards at many residential properties. Construction workers would encounter 22 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0469D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100320, Condensed Final EIS--178 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Draft EIS--267 pages and maps on CD-ROM, August 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-08-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+14%2C+OWATONNA+TO+DODGE+CENTER%2C+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+14%2C+OWATONNA+TO+DODGE+CENTER%2C+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIVER VALLEY INTERMODAL FACILITIES, POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2006). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - RIVER VALLEY INTERMODAL FACILITIES, POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2006). AN - 873132527; 14572-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of an intermodal facility for the City of Russellvile and the Arkansas River Valley (ARV) region on an 800-acre site in and on the banks of the Arkansas River in Pope County, Arkansas is proposed. The River Valley Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority, the sponsoring agency, wishes to promote economic development and job creation in the ARV by serving existing industry and providing services necessary to attract new business and industry to the area. The mechanism by which the Authority proposes to promote economic development is to construct and operate a multi-modal transportation complex in the ARV, which includes Conway, Johnson, Logan, Perry, Pope, and Yell counties. The intermodal facilities would be located in the river valley with access to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System via a slackwater harbor on the Arkansas River with dockside loading and unloading capabilities. The facility would provide a connection to the Tulsa Port of Catoosa in eastern Oklahoma via the Arkansas and Verdigris rivers and would provide a connection to the Mississippi River, thus allowing ready access to the U.S. inland waterway system. Access to the national railroad grid would be provided through the Class I Union Pacific Railroad and/or though The Class III short line Dardanelle Russellville Railroad. The intermodal facilities would also include local roadway access to Interstate 40. Ancillary services at the facility would include on-site rail/truck transfers, truck/water transfers, rail/water transfers, freight tracking, a foreign trade subzone, warehousing, distribution, consolidation, just-in-time inventory, and material storage capabilities. This supplemental draft EIS responds to comments on the 2006 draft EIS and presents new and updated information. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated. The Red Alternative would consist of an 832-acre tract located near Arkansas River Mile (ARM) 203. Most of this site would be within the floodplain of the Arkansas River and a levee system would be required to protect the proposed facilities. Under the Green Alternative, an 882-acre tract located near ARM 203 would be utilized and levee protection would be required. Some high quality wetlands, which would be impacted under the Red Alternative, would be avoided. Additionally, the levee would be set back to protect the forested riparian corridor and to provide a buffer between the site and the river. The Purple Alternative would consist of a 742-acre tract of rolling terrain located near ARM 220 along the north shore which would involve minimal impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The cost estimate range for the proposed intermodal complex alternatives is between $10 million and $30 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed complex would provide intermodal transportation access in a region characterized by a strong manufacturing orientation, with a higher percentage of the workforce in manufacturing jobs than the national average, strong regional educational facilities, and a history of public support for economic development. Persons educated at Arkansas Tech University, the University of Arkansas (Morrilton), and the Vo-Tech School at Russellville High School would provide a steady flow of highly trained workers for the intermodal facility and related ancillary services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the intermodal facility site and ancillary rail, road, and maritime connections would displace wetlands, and upland habitat, as well as farmland and forested land. Facility operations would create long-term potential for minor releases of chemicals and fuels. Depending on the action alternative selected, the project would displace six to 15 residences and one business. The Purple Alternative could adversely impact some recreational opportunities on Lake Dardanelle. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0272D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100318, 732 pages and maps, August 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: Federal Aid Project No. HPP-0268(2) KW - Barges KW - Community Facilities KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Structures KW - Highways KW - Industrial Districts KW - Industrial Parks KW - International Programs KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Arkansas River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIVER+VALLEY+INTERMODAL+FACILITIES%2C+POPE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2006%29.&rft.title=RIVER+VALLEY+INTERMODAL+FACILITIES%2C+POPE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Integration of a fish bioenergetics model into a spatially explicit water quality model: Application to menhaden in Chesapeake Bay AN - 759309423; 13216932 AB - Although fish are usually thought of as victims of water quality degradation, it has been proposed that some planktivorous species may improve water quality through consumption of algae and sequestering of nutrients via growth. Within most numerical water quality models, the highest trophic level modeled explicitly is zooplankton, prohibiting an investigation of the effect a fish species may be having on its environment. Conversely, numerical models of fish consumption do not typically include feedback mechanisms to capture the effects of fish on primary production and nutrient recycling. In the present study, a fish bioenergetics model is incorporated into CE-QUAL-ICM, a spatially explicit eutrophication model. In addition to fish consumption of algae, zooplankton, and detritus, fish biomass accumulation and nutrient recycling to the water column are explicitly accounted for. These developments advance prior modeling efforts of the impact of fish on water quality, many of which are based on integrated estimates over an entire system and which omit the feedback the fish have through nutrient recycling and excretion. To validate the developments, a pilot application was undertaken for Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) in Chesapeake Bay. The model indicates menhaden may reduce the algal biomass while simultaneously increasing primary productivity. JF - Ecological Modelling AU - Dalyander, PSoupy AU - Cerco, Carl F AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Mail Stop EP-W, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, Patricia.A.Dalyander@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/08/10/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Aug 10 SP - 1922 EP - 1933 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 221 IS - 16 SN - 0304-3800, 0304-3800 KW - Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts KW - Fish bioenergetics KW - Eutrophication modeling KW - Water quality modeling KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Atlantic menhaden KW - water quality KW - Entrainment KW - Bioenergetics KW - Nutrients KW - Recycling KW - Water quality KW - Primary production KW - Waste management KW - Models KW - Fish consumption KW - Feedback KW - Seafood KW - Algae KW - Modelling KW - Brevoortia tyrannus KW - Mathematical models KW - Zooplankton KW - bioenergetics KW - Biomass KW - ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay KW - A, Atlantic KW - Fish KW - Excretion KW - Secondary production KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - O 4080:Pollution - Control and Prevention KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - D 04030:Models, Methods, Remote Sensing KW - ENA 12:Oceans & Estuaries KW - K 03450:Ecology KW - Q1 08541:Biology of fouling and boring organisms UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759309423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ecological+Modelling&rft.atitle=Integration+of+a+fish+bioenergetics+model+into+a+spatially+explicit+water+quality+model%3A+Application+to+menhaden+in+Chesapeake+Bay&rft.au=Dalyander%2C+PSoupy%3BCerco%2C+Carl+F&rft.aulast=Dalyander&rft.aufirst=PSoupy&rft.date=2010-08-10&rft.volume=221&rft.issue=16&rft.spage=1922&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecological+Modelling&rft.issn=03043800&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecolmodel.2010.05.002 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Entrainment; Mathematical models; Bioenergetics; Fish consumption; Excretion; Secondary production; Water quality; Primary production; Modelling; Zooplankton; Feedback; Nutrients; Biomass; Recycling; Algae; Models; water quality; bioenergetics; Fish; Seafood; Waste management; Brevoortia tyrannus; ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay; A, Atlantic DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.05.002 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIVER VALLEY INTERMODAL FACILITIES, POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2006). AN - 755142960; 14572 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of an intermodal facility for the City of Russellvile and the Arkansas River Valley (ARV) region on an 800-acre site in and on the banks of the Arkansas River in Pope County, Arkansas is proposed. The River Valley Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority, the sponsoring agency, wishes to promote economic development and job creation in the ARV by serving existing industry and providing services necessary to attract new business and industry to the area. The mechanism by which the Authority proposes to promote economic development is to construct and operate a multi-modal transportation complex in the ARV, which includes Conway, Johnson, Logan, Perry, Pope, and Yell counties. The intermodal facilities would be located in the river valley with access to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System via a slackwater harbor on the Arkansas River with dockside loading and unloading capabilities. The facility would provide a connection to the Tulsa Port of Catoosa in eastern Oklahoma via the Arkansas and Verdigris rivers and would provide a connection to the Mississippi River, thus allowing ready access to the U.S. inland waterway system. Access to the national railroad grid would be provided through the Class I Union Pacific Railroad and/or though The Class III short line Dardanelle Russellville Railroad. The intermodal facilities would also include local roadway access to Interstate 40. Ancillary services at the facility would include on-site rail/truck transfers, truck/water transfers, rail/water transfers, freight tracking, a foreign trade subzone, warehousing, distribution, consolidation, just-in-time inventory, and material storage capabilities. This supplemental draft EIS responds to comments on the 2006 draft EIS and presents new and updated information. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated. The Red Alternative would consist of an 832-acre tract located near Arkansas River Mile (ARM) 203. Most of this site would be within the floodplain of the Arkansas River and a levee system would be required to protect the proposed facilities. Under the Green Alternative, an 882-acre tract located near ARM 203 would be utilized and levee protection would be required. Some high quality wetlands, which would be impacted under the Red Alternative, would be avoided. Additionally, the levee would be set back to protect the forested riparian corridor and to provide a buffer between the site and the river. The Purple Alternative would consist of a 742-acre tract of rolling terrain located near ARM 220 along the north shore which would involve minimal impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The cost estimate range for the proposed intermodal complex alternatives is between $10 million and $30 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed complex would provide intermodal transportation access in a region characterized by a strong manufacturing orientation, with a higher percentage of the workforce in manufacturing jobs than the national average, strong regional educational facilities, and a history of public support for economic development. Persons educated at Arkansas Tech University, the University of Arkansas (Morrilton), and the Vo-Tech School at Russellville High School would provide a steady flow of highly trained workers for the intermodal facility and related ancillary services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the intermodal facility site and ancillary rail, road, and maritime connections would displace wetlands, and upland habitat, as well as farmland and forested land. Facility operations would create long-term potential for minor releases of chemicals and fuels. Depending on the action alternative selected, the project would displace six to 15 residences and one business. The Purple Alternative could adversely impact some recreational opportunities on Lake Dardanelle. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0272D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100318, 732 pages and maps, August 10, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: Federal Aid Project No. HPP-0268(2) KW - Barges KW - Community Facilities KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Structures KW - Highways KW - Industrial Districts KW - Industrial Parks KW - International Programs KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Arkansas River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755142960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIVER+VALLEY+INTERMODAL+FACILITIES%2C+POPE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2006%29.&rft.title=RIVER+VALLEY+INTERMODAL+FACILITIES%2C+POPE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 14, OWATONNA TO DODGE CENTER, STEELE AND DODGE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 755142696; 14574 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 19 miles of Trunk Highway (TH) 14 from the existing four-lane bypass of Dodge Center to the intersection of TH 14 and Interstate 35 (I-35) in Steele and Dodge counties, Minnesota is proposed. TH 14 is a major east-west highway providing important links between the interregional corridors of I-35 in Owatonna, Highway 52 in Rochester, and Highway 169 in Mankato. The corridor is characterized by growing traffic levels, particularly truck traffic levels, reduced average travel speeds, limited passing opportunities, and significant safety issues. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic it carries. The proposed improvements would include the construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled freeway through the entire study corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would reconstruct TH 14 on the existing alignment, implementing the design described above. Alternative 3 would result in the construction of the four-lane upgrade partially on the existing alignment and partly on new alignment. Both alternatives include an option to provide a southern bypass around Claremont. Alternative 3, the South Bypass Alignment with Claremont Bypass Option 4 is the preferred alternative. Preferred interchange design options are a modified folded diamond interchange at County Road 45 in the City of Owatonna and a standard diamond at the existing Highway 14/County Road 43 intersection in Havana Township. Cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $151.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded facility would maintain mobility under future traffic conditions, improve travel safety, enhance system continuity by completing a four-lane segment connecting two contiguous four lane sections, and foster economic growth along the corridor. Improved movement of traffic along the corridor could increase use of transit options in the region and improve the efficiency of transit connections. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 578 acres of right-of-way and would displace 17 residences, 600 acres of prime or unique farmland, and 15.9 acres of wetlands. The project would impact three properties which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The highway would add 123 acres of new impervious surface to the corridor, increasing roadway runoff and adding greater levels of pollutants to receiving surface flows. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed Minnesota standards at many residential properties. Construction workers would encounter 22 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0469D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100320, Condensed Final EIS--178 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Draft EIS--267 pages and maps on CD-ROM, August 10, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-08-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755142696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+14%2C+OWATONNA+TO+DODGE+CENTER%2C+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+14%2C+OWATONNA+TO+DODGE+CENTER%2C+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hurricane-induced failure of low salinity wetlands AN - 1351600346; 2013-040692 AB - During the 2005 hurricane season, the storm surge and wave field associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita eroded 527 km (super 2) of wetlands within the Louisiana coastal plain. Low salinity wetlands were preferentially eroded, while higher salinity wetlands remained robust and largely unchanged. Here we highlight geotechnical differences between the soil profiles of high and low salinity regimes, which are controlled by vegetation and result in differential erosion. In low salinity wetlands, a weak zone (shear strength 500-1450 Pa) was observed ?30 cm below the marsh surface, coinciding with the base of rooting. High salinity wetlands had no such zone (shear strengths > 4500 Pa) and contained deeper rooting. Storm waves during Hurricane Katrina produced shear stresses between 425-3600 Pa, sufficient to cause widespread erosion of the low salinity wetlands. Vegetation in low salinity marshes is subject to shallower rooting and is susceptible to erosion during large magnitude storms; these conditions may be exacerbated by low inorganic sediment content and high nutrient inputs. The dramatic difference in resiliency of fresh versus more saline marshes suggests that the introduction of freshwater to marshes as part of restoration efforts may therefore weaken existing wetlands rendering them vulnerable to hurricanes. JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America AU - Howes, Nick C AU - FitzGerald, Duncan M AU - Hughes, Zoe J AU - Georgiou, Ioannis Y AU - Kulp, Mark A AU - Miner, Michael D AU - Smith, Jane M AU - Barras, John A Y1 - 2010/08/10/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Aug 10 SP - 14014 EP - 14019 PB - National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC VL - 107 IS - 32 SN - 0027-8424, 0027-8424 KW - United States KW - shear strength KW - erosion KW - shear stress KW - erosion rates KW - vegetation KW - salinity KW - Bayou Terre aux Boeufs KW - environmental effects KW - cores KW - land loss KW - Hurricane Rita KW - storms KW - Louisiana KW - storm surges KW - littoral erosion KW - southeastern Louisiana KW - soils KW - North America KW - Hurricane Katrina KW - Saint Bernard Parish Louisiana KW - roots KW - roughness KW - Mississippi Delta KW - shorelines KW - Gulf Coastal Plain KW - cyclones KW - Breton Sound KW - brackish water KW - wetlands KW - Plaquemines Parish Louisiana KW - natural hazards KW - hurricanes KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1351600346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+National+Academy+of+Sciences+of+the+United+States+of+America&rft.atitle=Hurricane-induced+failure+of+low+salinity+wetlands&rft.au=Howes%2C+Nick+C%3BFitzGerald%2C+Duncan+M%3BHughes%2C+Zoe+J%3BGeorgiou%2C+Ioannis+Y%3BKulp%2C+Mark+A%3BMiner%2C+Michael+D%3BSmith%2C+Jane+M%3BBarras%2C+John+A&rft.aulast=Howes&rft.aufirst=Nick&rft.date=2010-08-10&rft.volume=107&rft.issue=32&rft.spage=14014&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+National+Academy+of+Sciences+of+the+United+States+of+America&rft.issn=00278424&rft_id=info:doi/10.1073%2Fpnas.0914582107 L2 - http://www.pnas.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 42 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Supplemental information/data is available in the online version of this article N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-16 N1 - CODEN - PNASA6 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Bayou Terre aux Boeufs; brackish water; Breton Sound; cores; cyclones; environmental effects; erosion; erosion rates; Gulf Coastal Plain; Hurricane Katrina; Hurricane Rita; hurricanes; land loss; littoral erosion; Louisiana; Mississippi Delta; natural hazards; North America; Plaquemines Parish Louisiana; roots; roughness; Saint Bernard Parish Louisiana; salinity; shear strength; shear stress; shorelines; soils; southeastern Louisiana; storm surges; storms; United States; vegetation; wetlands DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914582107 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEVY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - LEVY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873133429; 14565-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) site in Levy County, Florida is proposed. Progress Energy Florida, Inc. submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on July 28, 2008 for the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 which would be located on a 3,105-acre greenfield site 7.9 miles east of the Gulf of Mexico and 30.1 miles west of Ocala. The site is also 9.6 miles from the Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC), an energy facility owned by Progress Energy Florida. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power rating of 3,415 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,200 MW electrical. Each reactor unit would be supported by a multicell mechanical draft cooling tower that is approximately 1,000 feet long and 56 feet high. Makeup water would be provided to the plant from the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) through a cooling-water intake structure located on the north side of the canal and south of the LNP site. No new discharge structure is proposed for LNP Units 1 and 2. A portion of the makeup water would be transported via pipeline from the LNP site to the CREC site and released into the existing discharge canal and ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico. The remaining portion of LNP makeup water would be released into the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through the mechanical draft cooling towers. Access to the LNP site would be provided by two roads approaching from U.S. Highway 19. Solid waste and radioactive waste would leave the site via roadways. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management systems would collect the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating the proposed units. Progress Energy Florida is in the process of acquiring right-of-way for transmission-line corridors that would provide the connection between the LNP site and the area power grid. Based on estimates of construction phase duration and schedule, LNP site preparation would start in 2012, peak employment of 3,300 workers would be reached in 2016, Unit 1 would commence commercial operation in 2018, and Unit 2 would commence commercial operation in 2019. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, alternative reactor sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. The preliminary recommendation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would help meet growing demand by providing additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the Progress Energy Florida service area, including Orlando and St. Petersburg. Tax revenue would benefit Levy County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would permanently convert 627 acres of land onsite and 219 acres offsite. Transmission-line corridors would require 1,790 acres of land disturbance. Building LNP Units 1 and 2 and their ancillary facilities would occur within the 100-year floodplain and would permanently impact 318.6 acres of wetlands. Hydrologic alterations at or near the site would include: dredging for the intake structure, barge slip, and discharge pipeline; altering the surface topography; changes to runoff and infiltration characteristics; dewatering the excavations for the nuclear island and intake structure; and groundwater withdrawal to supply water. Activities along the proposed transmission corridors could affect habitat for wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, and Florida scrub jay. Increased demand would stress community public services including education, police, emergency services, fire protection, and transportation. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100311, Volume 1--738 pages, Volume 2--740 pages, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1941 KW - Birds KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Canals KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Municipal Services KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEVY+NUCLEAR+PLANT+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+LEVY+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEVY+NUCLEAR+PLANT+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+LEVY+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 28 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133099; 14567-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 27 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133088; 14567-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 26 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133082; 14567-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 25 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133075; 14567-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 24 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133068; 14567-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 23 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133060; 14567-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 17 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133058; 14567-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&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 Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 16 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133052; 14567-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 7 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133051; 14567-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 15 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133046; 14567-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 6 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133041; 14567-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 22 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133036; 14567-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 14 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133035; 14567-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 5 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133033; 14567-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 3 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133029; 14567-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 4 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133028; 14567-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 2 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133025; 14567-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 13 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133023; 14567-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133016; 14567-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 12 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873133010; 14567-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 33 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873131540; 14567-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 32 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873131530; 14567-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 31 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873131522; 14567-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 30 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873131514; 14567-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 29 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873131501; 14567-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 18 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873131492; 14567-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEVY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - LEVY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873131437; 14565-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) site in Levy County, Florida is proposed. Progress Energy Florida, Inc. submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on July 28, 2008 for the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 which would be located on a 3,105-acre greenfield site 7.9 miles east of the Gulf of Mexico and 30.1 miles west of Ocala. The site is also 9.6 miles from the Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC), an energy facility owned by Progress Energy Florida. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power rating of 3,415 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,200 MW electrical. Each reactor unit would be supported by a multicell mechanical draft cooling tower that is approximately 1,000 feet long and 56 feet high. Makeup water would be provided to the plant from the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) through a cooling-water intake structure located on the north side of the canal and south of the LNP site. No new discharge structure is proposed for LNP Units 1 and 2. A portion of the makeup water would be transported via pipeline from the LNP site to the CREC site and released into the existing discharge canal and ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico. The remaining portion of LNP makeup water would be released into the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through the mechanical draft cooling towers. Access to the LNP site would be provided by two roads approaching from U.S. Highway 19. Solid waste and radioactive waste would leave the site via roadways. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management systems would collect the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating the proposed units. Progress Energy Florida is in the process of acquiring right-of-way for transmission-line corridors that would provide the connection between the LNP site and the area power grid. Based on estimates of construction phase duration and schedule, LNP site preparation would start in 2012, peak employment of 3,300 workers would be reached in 2016, Unit 1 would commence commercial operation in 2018, and Unit 2 would commence commercial operation in 2019. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, alternative reactor sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. The preliminary recommendation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would help meet growing demand by providing additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the Progress Energy Florida service area, including Orlando and St. Petersburg. Tax revenue would benefit Levy County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would permanently convert 627 acres of land onsite and 219 acres offsite. Transmission-line corridors would require 1,790 acres of land disturbance. Building LNP Units 1 and 2 and their ancillary facilities would occur within the 100-year floodplain and would permanently impact 318.6 acres of wetlands. Hydrologic alterations at or near the site would include: dredging for the intake structure, barge slip, and discharge pipeline; altering the surface topography; changes to runoff and infiltration characteristics; dewatering the excavations for the nuclear island and intake structure; and groundwater withdrawal to supply water. Activities along the proposed transmission corridors could affect habitat for wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, and Florida scrub jay. Increased demand would stress community public services including education, police, emergency services, fire protection, and transportation. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100311, Volume 1--738 pages, Volume 2--740 pages, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1941 KW - Birds KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Canals KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Municipal Services KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEVY+NUCLEAR+PLANT+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+LEVY+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEVY+NUCLEAR+PLANT+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+LEVY+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 19 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873131428; 14567-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 11 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873130978; 14567-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 10 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873130965; 14567-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 9 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873130946; 14567-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 8 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873130925; 14567-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 21 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873128158; 14567-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. [Part 20 of 33] T2 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873128147; 14567-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 853675846; 14566-100312_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The site, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and 5 miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core thermal power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000 gallon per day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The preliminary recommendation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Erection of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Impacts due to cooling system operation to shoreline vegetation would be noticeable. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100312, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--711 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--239 pages, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 853675841; 14566-100312_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The site, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and 5 miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core thermal power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000 gallon per day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The preliminary recommendation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Erection of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Impacts due to cooling system operation to shoreline vegetation would be noticeable. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100312, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--711 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--239 pages, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 853675835; 14566-100312_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The site, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and 5 miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core thermal power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000 gallon per day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The preliminary recommendation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Erection of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Impacts due to cooling system operation to shoreline vegetation would be noticeable. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100312, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--711 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--239 pages, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 853675527; 14566-100312_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The site, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and 5 miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core thermal power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000 gallon per day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The preliminary recommendation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Erection of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Impacts due to cooling system operation to shoreline vegetation would be noticeable. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100312, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--711 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--239 pages, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOETHALS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK AND ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY. AN - 755143110; 14567 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new cable-stayed bridge that would replace the Goethals Bridge and continue to serve as an Interstate 278 (I-278) link across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey is proposed. The Goethals Bridge is a primary path of travel in the bi-state metropolitan area's regional highway network and provides a direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike and access to the West Shore Expressway, the major north-south highway on Staten Island. The bridge was completed in 1928 and by the 1980s had become functionally obsolete. Traffic across the Goethals Bridge increased an average of 33 percent annually between 1964 and 1973. Total weekday peak-period traffic volumes for both directions have increased from 7,100 to 36,600 vehicles between 1964 and 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to overall need for the project, demolition of the existing bridge, potential traffic increases on local roadways, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and displacement of residential and commercial properties. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Build Alternative assumes that operation and maintenance of the Goethals Bridge would continue and that the existing structure would require a full deck replacement and retrofit procedures for seismic upgrade within the next 7 to 10 years. Two build alternatives would place a new six-lane structure on new alignments either north or south of the existing structure's alignment. The new bridge would be constructed in its entirety, after which the existing bridge would be demolished. Two additional build alternatives would place one-half of a new six-lane structure within the existing Goethals Bridge alignment with either the southern half or northern half of the new bridge adjacent to the existing alignment. One half of the new bridge would be constructed first and would temporarily accommodate both directions of traffic during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the second half of the new bridge. The New Alignment South is the preferred alternative. The proposed new bridge would consist of six 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide outer shoulder on each roadway, a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway, a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the westbound roadway, and a central area to be maintained between the eastbound and westbound decks to accommodate the provision of future transit service if warranted during the service life of the bridge. Navigational vertical clearance under the new bridge would be a minimum of 135 feet above mean high water and horizontal clearance would be increased from the existing 617 feet to a total of 900 feet between the two main piers. The top elevation of the two bridge towers would be 272 feet above mean sea level, and would not conflict with flight departures from Newark Liberty International Airport which is located three miles north of the bridge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address the deficiencies of the functionally obsolete existing bridge and would reduce the life-cycle cost concerns associated with future rehabilitation and maintenance requirements. Completion of the new span would provide transportation system redundancy, improve traffic conditions, reduce accidents, provide safe and reliable truck access for interstate movement of goods, and provide for potential future transit in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would displace 51 residential and eight business properties. It would have an adverse effect on three historic properties, including demolition of the Goethals Bridge, as well as visual impacts to the Staten Island Railroad Historic District in Elizabeth and the Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill. Under the preferred alternative, 5.59 acres of wetlands would be impacted, most predominantly within the tidal wetlands of the Old Place Creek system in Staten Island. Two traffic locations in New Jersey and seven in New York would exhibit traffic conditions that are worse than the No Build condition in 2034. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide would exceed standards during the construction period. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0301D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100313, Final EIS--3 Volumes on CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Interstate Commerce KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Arthur Kill KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Newark International Airport KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755143110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=GOETHALS+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+STATEN+ISLAND%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+ELIZABETH%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, New York, New York; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEVY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 755143106; 14565 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) site in Levy County, Florida is proposed. Progress Energy Florida, Inc. submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on July 28, 2008 for the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 which would be located on a 3,105-acre greenfield site 7.9 miles east of the Gulf of Mexico and 30.1 miles west of Ocala. The site is also 9.6 miles from the Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC), an energy facility owned by Progress Energy Florida. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power rating of 3,415 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,200 MW electrical. Each reactor unit would be supported by a multicell mechanical draft cooling tower that is approximately 1,000 feet long and 56 feet high. Makeup water would be provided to the plant from the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) through a cooling-water intake structure located on the north side of the canal and south of the LNP site. No new discharge structure is proposed for LNP Units 1 and 2. A portion of the makeup water would be transported via pipeline from the LNP site to the CREC site and released into the existing discharge canal and ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico. The remaining portion of LNP makeup water would be released into the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through the mechanical draft cooling towers. Access to the LNP site would be provided by two roads approaching from U.S. Highway 19. Solid waste and radioactive waste would leave the site via roadways. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management systems would collect the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating the proposed units. Progress Energy Florida is in the process of acquiring right-of-way for transmission-line corridors that would provide the connection between the LNP site and the area power grid. Based on estimates of construction phase duration and schedule, LNP site preparation would start in 2012, peak employment of 3,300 workers would be reached in 2016, Unit 1 would commence commercial operation in 2018, and Unit 2 would commence commercial operation in 2019. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, alternative reactor sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. The preliminary recommendation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would help meet growing demand by providing additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the Progress Energy Florida service area, including Orlando and St. Petersburg. Tax revenue would benefit Levy County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would permanently convert 627 acres of land onsite and 219 acres offsite. Transmission-line corridors would require 1,790 acres of land disturbance. Building LNP Units 1 and 2 and their ancillary facilities would occur within the 100-year floodplain and would permanently impact 318.6 acres of wetlands. Hydrologic alterations at or near the site would include: dredging for the intake structure, barge slip, and discharge pipeline; altering the surface topography; changes to runoff and infiltration characteristics; dewatering the excavations for the nuclear island and intake structure; and groundwater withdrawal to supply water. Activities along the proposed transmission corridors could affect habitat for wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, and Florida scrub jay. Increased demand would stress community public services including education, police, emergency services, fire protection, and transportation. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100311, Volume 1--738 pages, Volume 2--740 pages, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1941 KW - Birds KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Canals KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Municipal Services KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755143106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEVY+NUCLEAR+PLANT+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+LEVY+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEVY+NUCLEAR+PLANT+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+LEVY+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 755142690; 14566 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The site, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and 5 miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core thermal power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000 gallon per day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The preliminary recommendation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Erection of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Impacts due to cooling system operation to shoreline vegetation would be noticeable. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100312, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--711 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--239 pages, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755142690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 16 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876255446; 14560-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255446?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 15 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876255445; 14560-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 9 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876255443; 14560-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 8 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876255442; 14560-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 7 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876255440; 14560-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 4 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254723; 14560-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 3 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254721; 14560-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 2 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254720; 14560-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 1 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254718; 14560-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 5 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254716; 14560-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 6 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254553; 14560-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 32 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254365; 14560-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 31 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254364; 14560-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 30 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254363; 14560-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254363?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 20 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254362; 14560-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 19 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254361; 14560-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 18 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254360; 14560-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 12 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254359; 14560-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 17 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876254358; 14560-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254358?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 22 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876253250; 14560-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 21 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876253249; 14560-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 10 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876253161; 14560-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&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 the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 11 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876248564; 14560-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 14 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876248264; 14560-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 13 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876248256; 14560-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 29 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876246282; 14560-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 28 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876246274; 14560-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 27 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876246269; 14560-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 26 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876246120; 14560-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 25 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876246115; 14560-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 24 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876246108; 14560-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 23 of 32] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 876246102; 14560-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of additional facilities at Fort Stewart Training Range and Garrison in Liberty, Long, Bryan, Evans, and Tattnall counties, Georgia is proposed. Fort Stewart, located in southeastern Georgia, is the largest Army installation in area east of the Mississippi River and encompasses nearly 280,000 acres of land. The Army needs to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Stewart to ensure its soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. Approximately 25,000 soldiers will be assigned to Fort Stewart once all directives are implemented. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, and an as-yet undetermined engineer battalion. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites for the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: a multipurpose machine gun range, modified record fire ranges, qualification training range, combat pistol qualification range, fire and movement range, 10/25 meter zero range, infantry platoon battle course, infantry squad battle course, digital multipurpose training range, known distance range, and convoy live fire range. All of these ranges would utilize small caliber weapons and associated ammunition with the exception of the digital multipurpose training range. The proposed complex in support of an engineering battalion would include company operations facilities with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support the military training occurring at Fort Stewart and ensure soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and construction activity associated with land clearing, paving, and building will require the use of fuel-burning equipment with impacts to air quality. Approximately 25 to 50 acres of disturbance would be necessary to construct the proposed engineering battalion complex. Under Alternative B, a total of 181.6 acres of wetlands and 484.3 acres of floodplains would be impacted. Weapons use could cause wildfires. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0005D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100306, Final EIS--454 pages, Appendices--1,083 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Parking KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Stewart KW - Georgia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+STEWART+TRAINING+RANGE+AND+GARRISON+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+LIBERTY%2C+LONG%2C+BRYAN%2C+EVANS%2C+AND+TATTNALL+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Stewart Range and Garrison, Fort Stewart, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 9 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133122; 14561-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 8 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133112; 14561-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 7 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133104; 14561-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 16 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133095; 14561-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 6 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133093; 14561-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 15 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133089; 14561-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 5 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133085; 14561-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 14 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133084; 14561-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 13 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133074; 14561-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 4 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133073; 14561-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 12 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133071; 14561-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 3 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133067; 14561-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 11 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133066; 14561-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 10 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873133057; 14561-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 23 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873131728; 14561-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 2 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873131569; 14561-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 1 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873131564; 14561-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 22 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873128105; 14561-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 21 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873128102; 14561-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 20 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873128097; 14561-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 19 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873128092; 14561-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 18 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873128088; 14561-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 17 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873128081; 14561-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). [Part 24 of 24] T2 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 873127860; 14561-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127860?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=HIGHWAY+371+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28REVISED+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HIGHWAY 371 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (REVISED FINAL EIS). AN - 755143141; 14561 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway within the existing Minnesota Highway 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road (CR) 2/42 in Pine River is proposed. The project corridor is 16 miles long. Highway 371 is a major north-south route on the Minnesota trunk highway system providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. Tourist travel creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility and is characterized by high crash rates, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. Alternative 2, which was the preferred alternative, proposed using the existing alignment throughout the project. Other build alternatives considered using the existing alignment for the most part, but alternatives 3 and 4 proposed a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 proposed a bypass around Jenkins. This supplemental final EIS addresses changes to the preferred alternative based on a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design to a bypass. Under the new preferred alternative (Alternative 3MOD), the highway would be expanded on its existing alignment from CSAH 18 in Nisswa to just south of CR 107/168 in Pequot Lakes. At that point, the highway would be reconstructed on a new alignment extending along the east edge of the downtown Pequot Lakes area intersecting CSAH 11 one-half mile east of the existing junction of Highway 371 and CSAH 11. The bypass would continue north and converge with the existing Highway 371/CR 16 intersection and continue along the existing alignment through Jenkins to CR 2/42 in Pine River. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.9 million including interchange construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improve community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 345 acres of right-of-way and 15 residential and 5 commercial relocations. Expansion to a four-lane facility coupled with increased traffic would reduce community cohesion in Nisswa, Jenkins, and Pine River. The Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted and there would be some disruption of local and regional utility services. Up to 53 hazardous waste sites could be encountered. The project would displace 17.7 acres of wetlands. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2 and 05-0413F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100307, Supplemental Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Final EIS--201 pages and maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, August 2, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-PS KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755143141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-08-19&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 Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Application and validation of a GIS-based stream bank stability tool for the Great Lakes region AN - 807619081; 2010-100270 JF - Journal of Soil and Water Conservation AU - Stone, Amanda G AU - Riedel, Mark S AU - Dahl, Travis AU - Selegean, James Y1 - 2010/08// PY - 2010 DA - August 2010 SP - 92A EP - 98A PB - Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, IA VL - 65 IS - 4 SN - 0022-4561, 0022-4561 KW - United States KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - Sebewaing Watershed KW - degradation KW - Great Lakes region KW - PCBs KW - watersheds KW - geographic information systems KW - river banks KW - sediments KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - soils KW - hydrology KW - North America KW - pollution KW - fresh-water environment KW - organic compounds KW - riparian environment KW - information systems KW - Michigan KW - erodibility KW - water resources KW - slope stability KW - aquatic environment KW - algal blooms KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/807619081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Soil+and+Water+Conservation&rft.atitle=Application+and+validation+of+a+GIS-based+stream+bank+stability+tool+for+the+Great+Lakes+region&rft.au=Stone%2C+Amanda+G%3BRiedel%2C+Mark+S%3BDahl%2C+Travis%3BSelegean%2C+James&rft.aulast=Stone&rft.aufirst=Amanda&rft.date=2010-08-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=92A&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Soil+and+Water+Conservation&rft.issn=00224561&rft_id=info:doi/10.2489%2Fjswc.65.4.92A L2 - http://www.jswconline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 35 N1 - PubXState - IA N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - JSWCA3 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algal blooms; aquatic environment; chlorinated hydrocarbons; degradation; erodibility; fresh-water environment; geographic information systems; Great Lakes region; halogenated hydrocarbons; hydrology; information systems; Michigan; North America; organic compounds; PCBs; pollution; riparian environment; river banks; Sebewaing Watershed; sediments; slope stability; soils; United States; water resources; watersheds DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2489/jswc.65.4.92A ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Potential of breakthroughs of impounded coal refuse slurry into underground mines AN - 759305250; 2010-087315 AB - On October 11, 2000, an estimated 306 million gallons of water and fine coal refuse slurry broke through a bedrock barrier from an impoundment in Martin County, eastern Kentucky, into an adjacent underground mine. Approximately 260 million gallons of the water and coal slurry discharged from two underground mine portals and affected over 75 miles of streams in Kentucky and West Virginia. As a result of this and several other breakthroughs over just half a decade, the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) and other institutions undertook investigations to assess the causes of the events, the potential for additional breakthroughs in the future, and available methods for preventing them. In addition to needed improvements in the design, construction, and inspection of the facilities, the studies have addressed issues pertaining to the flow characteristics of refuse slurry, not only in impoundments still receiving pumped slurry, but also in "idle" and reclaimed facilities. Related questions concern: (1) the effects on breakthrough potential of the impoundment abandonment process and construction of slurry cells on top of capped structures; and (2) appropriate measures and available methods that may be used to ensure that underground mines adjacent to or underlying impoundments are known and accurately located. Current information on the engineering properties of coal refuse in existing facilities provides no assurance against fine refuse flowability during any stage in the impoundment construction and reclamation process or after reclamation has been completed. Due to this uncertainty, thorough site investigations and conservative measures in design, construction, reclamation, and quality control are of paramount importance. JF - Environmental & Engineering Geoscience AU - Michael, Peter R AU - Richmond, Michael W AU - Superfesky, Michael J AU - Stump, Donald E, Jr AU - Chavel, Lisa K Y1 - 2010/08// PY - 2010 DA - August 2010 SP - 299 EP - 314 PB - Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists and The Geological Society of America, College Station, TX VL - 16 IS - 3 SN - 1078-7275, 1078-7275 KW - United States KW - bedrock KW - soil mechanics KW - mining KW - mines KW - underground mining KW - reclamation KW - coal mines KW - Martin County Kentucky KW - liquefaction potential KW - liquefaction KW - rock mechanics KW - slurries KW - Kentucky KW - construction KW - design KW - abandoned mines KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759305250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geoscience&rft.atitle=Potential+of+breakthroughs+of+impounded+coal+refuse+slurry+into+underground+mines&rft.au=Michael%2C+Peter+R%3BRichmond%2C+Michael+W%3BSuperfesky%2C+Michael+J%3BStump%2C+Donald+E%2C+Jr%3BChavel%2C+Lisa+K&rft.aulast=Michael&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft.date=2010-08-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=299&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geoscience&rft.issn=10787275&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2Fgseegeosci.16.3.299 L2 - http://eeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, Copyright, Association of Engineering Geologists and the Geological Society of America | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 45 N1 - PubXState - TX N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ENGEA9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - abandoned mines; bedrock; coal mines; construction; design; Kentucky; liquefaction; liquefaction potential; Martin County Kentucky; mines; mining; reclamation; rock mechanics; slurries; soil mechanics; underground mining; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.16.3.299 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Seepage remediation and karst foundation treatment at Clearwater Dam, Piedmont, Missouri AN - 759305050; 2010-087309 AB - Following the detection of a sinkhole in the upstream face of Clearwater Dam in January 2003, substantial efforts have been completed to explore and pre-treat the dam foundation in preparation for construction of a "hanging" cutoff wall that will complete the seepage remediation program. Initial phases of pre-treatment started in 2004 and included core drilling and placement of both low- and high-mobility grouts in the immediate vicinity of the sinkhole. This work preceded the more extensive efforts that were completed in the fall of 2009. The recently completed project was primarily a down-stage, high-mobility grouting effort involving approximately 840 boreholes in two lines along the 4,225-ft-long embankment. In addition, the project also included treatment of an extensive epikarst zone and placement of low-mobility and sanded grout mixes in selected problematic locations. High initial epikarst and bedrock permeability ranging from 20 to 200 Lugeon was reduced using systematic grouting approaches focused toward achieving a pre-treatment target of 10 Lugeon within the vertical limits of the proposed cutoff wall and a 3-Lugeon target beneath the proposed cutoff wall. Pervasive solution-enhanced bedrock fractures resulting from repeated tectonic uplift and sub-aerial exposure set forth challenging conditions in the face of the pre-treatment objectives. Against this baseline condition, the recent grouting efforts have set the stage for construction of a cutoff wall and completion of the Clearwater Dam Major Rehabilitation Project. JF - Environmental & Engineering Geoscience AU - Knight, Michael A AU - Harris, Mark C AU - Van Cleave, Bobby E AU - Hockenberry, Adam N Y1 - 2010/08// PY - 2010 DA - August 2010 SP - 195 EP - 210 PB - Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists and The Geological Society of America, College Station, TX VL - 16 IS - 3 SN - 1078-7275, 1078-7275 KW - United States KW - soil mechanics KW - North America KW - engineering properties KW - Missouri KW - Black River KW - Appalachians KW - karst KW - grouting KW - seepage KW - Ozark Plateau KW - rock mechanics KW - remediation KW - Wayne County Missouri KW - foundations KW - sedimentary rocks KW - Clearwater Dam KW - dams KW - carbonate rocks KW - Piedmont KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759305050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geoscience&rft.atitle=Seepage+remediation+and+karst+foundation+treatment+at+Clearwater+Dam%2C+Piedmont%2C+Missouri&rft.au=Knight%2C+Michael+A%3BHarris%2C+Mark+C%3BVan+Cleave%2C+Bobby+E%3BHockenberry%2C+Adam+N&rft.aulast=Knight&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2010-08-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=195&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geoscience&rft.issn=10787275&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2Fgseegeosci.16.3.195 L2 - http://eeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, Copyright, Association of Engineering Geologists and the Geological Society of America | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 23 N1 - PubXState - TX N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ENGEA9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Appalachians; Black River; carbonate rocks; Clearwater Dam; dams; engineering properties; foundations; grouting; karst; Missouri; North America; Ozark Plateau; Piedmont; remediation; rock mechanics; sedimentary rocks; seepage; soil mechanics; United States; Wayne County Missouri DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.16.3.195 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of seepage, internal erosion, and remedial alternatives for East Branch Dam, Elk County, Pennsylvania AN - 759304850; 2010-087311 AB - East Branch Dam is a Pittsburgh District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) dam that nearly failed in 1957, several years after construction. The dam is a zoned embankment that is 56 m (184 ft) high and 526 m (1,725 ft) long. Its primary purpose is flood control. Following the observation of muddy water flowing from a rock drain at the downstream toe of the dam, soon after construction, emergency drilling through the embankment exposed a void that demanded lowering the pool and subsequent grouting. Localized grouting was accomplished to treat the void but did not involve a comprehensive repair of the dam. The 1957 near failure of East Branch Dam represents an excellent case history that provides dam designers and operators today insight into the mechanisms of internal erosion within an embankment dam, and it underscores the need to quickly take all necessary actions to protect the public. Since the 1957 emergency, the project has performed satisfactorily and has been closely monitored with a network of piezometers, weirs, and alignment-settlement pins. Even though evidence of further internal erosion has not reappeared, the fundamental conditions that caused the original problem were not corrected by the 1957 emergency repairs. Recently, the dam was evaluated under the COE Screening Portfolio Risk Assessment (SPRA) program. In light of the 1957 incident, conditions of active seepage, and high phreatic pressures within the embankment, the SPRA program assigned East Branch a Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) rating of II, generally indicating that failure could begin during normal operations or be initiated as the consequence of an event. A potential failure mode analysis (PFMA) was conducted in 2008 by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) as requested and participated in by the Pittsburgh District. The PMFA identified the potential for re-initiation of internal erosion at or near the cavity repair as the highest risk failure mode and a primary threat to public safety. Given these findings, the Pittsburgh District implemented a set of non-structural interim risk reduction measures (IRRM) in February 2008, including lowering of the pool to reduce risk of failure by an estimated 60 percent. The interim measures will allow the dam to operate safely until the COE determines the appropriate long-term remedy to address the structural deficiencies of East Branch Dam. In 2009, a joint COE-USBR PFMA was undertaken using procedures from both agencies. Current dam safety efforts involve reassessing potential failure modes, preparing a Dam Safety Modification Report, evaluating various remedial alternatives, and recommending a long-range repair plan for East Branch Dam. This paper examines the history of the dam, investigations performed, potential failure modes examined, and the range of remedial alternatives being considered. JF - Environmental & Engineering Geoscience AU - Greene, Brian H AU - Crock, Jennifer AU - Moskovitz, Larry AU - Premozic, Joseph W Y1 - 2010/08// PY - 2010 DA - August 2010 SP - 229 EP - 243 PB - Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists and The Geological Society of America, College Station, TX VL - 16 IS - 3 SN - 1078-7275, 1078-7275 KW - United States KW - failures KW - embankments KW - East Branch Dam KW - site exploration KW - Elk County Pennsylvania KW - reclamation KW - grouting KW - seepage KW - rock mechanics KW - remediation KW - drawdown KW - dams KW - Pennsylvania KW - erodibility KW - construction KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759304850?accountid=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: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/ L2 - http://eeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, Copyright, Association of Engineering Geologists and the Geological Society of America | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 9 N1 - PubXState - TX N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ENGEA9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - construction; dams; drawdown; East Branch Dam; Elk County Pennsylvania; embankments; erodibility; failures; grouting; Pennsylvania; reclamation; remediation; rock mechanics; seepage; site exploration; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.16.3.229 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Shear wave velocities of Mississippi Embayment soils from low frequency surface wave measurements AN - 1756507367; 2016-003923 AB - Deep unconsolidated sediments in the Mississippi embayment will influence ground motions from earthquakes in the New Madrid seismic zone. Shear wave velocity profiles of these sediments are important input parameters for modeling wave propagation and site response in this region. Low-frequency, active-source surface wave velocity measurements were performed to develop small-strain shear wave velocity (V (sub S) ) profiles at eleven deep soil sites in the Mississippi embayment, from north of New Madrid, Missouri to Memphis, Tennessee. A servo-hydraulic, low-frequency source was used to excite surface wave energy to wavelengths of 600 m, resulting in V (sub S) profiles to depths of over 200 m. The average V (sub S) profile calculated from the eleven sites is in good agreement with common reference V (sub S) profiles that have been used in seismic hazard studies of this region. The variability in V (sub S) profiles is shown to be associated with changes in formation depth and thickness from site-to-site. Using lithologic information at each site, average formation velocities were developed and compared to previous studies. We found average V (sub S) values of about 193 m/s for alluvial deposits, 400 m/s for the Upper Claiborne formations, and 685 m/s for the Memphis Sand formation. Abstract Copyright (2010) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (1984) AU - Rosenblad, Brent L AU - Bailey, Jonathan AU - Csontos, Ryan AU - Van Arsdale, Roy Y1 - 2010/08// PY - 2010 DA - August 2010 SP - 691 EP - 701 PB - Elsevier, Southampton VL - 30 IS - 8 SN - 0267-7261, 0267-7261 KW - United States KW - geologic hazards KW - Mississippi Embayment KW - elastic waves KW - seismic response KW - New Madrid region KW - Cenozoic KW - seismic zoning KW - surface waves KW - seismic risk KW - sediments KW - velocity KW - Memphis Sand KW - dynamic properties KW - soils KW - body waves KW - seismic profiles KW - middle Eocene KW - guided waves KW - Eocene KW - clastic sediments KW - Paleogene KW - Tertiary KW - natural hazards KW - ground motion KW - Claiborne Group KW - geophysical profiles KW - alluvium KW - unconsolidated materials KW - seismic waves KW - earthquakes KW - S-waves KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1756507367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Soil+Dynamics+and+Earthquake+Engineering+%281984%29&rft.atitle=Shear+wave+velocities+of+Mississippi+Embayment+soils+from+low+frequency+surface+wave+measurements&rft.au=Rosenblad%2C+Brent+L%3BBailey%2C+Jonathan%3BCsontos%2C+Ryan%3BVan+Arsdale%2C+Roy&rft.aulast=Rosenblad&rft.aufirst=Brent&rft.date=2010-08-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=691&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+Dynamics+and+Earthquake+Engineering+%281984%29&rft.issn=02677261&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.soildyn.2010.02.010 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 - 33 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2016-01-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - alluvium; body waves; Cenozoic; Claiborne Group; clastic sediments; dynamic properties; earthquakes; elastic waves; Eocene; geologic hazards; geophysical profiles; ground motion; guided waves; Memphis Sand; middle Eocene; Mississippi Embayment; natural hazards; New Madrid region; Paleogene; S-waves; sediments; seismic profiles; seismic response; seismic risk; seismic waves; seismic zoning; soils; surface waves; Tertiary; unconsolidated materials; United States; velocity DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.02.010 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Atypical chlorophyll responses to stress in a high light coastal environment T2 - 95th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2010) AN - 1312928589; 6030343 JF - 95th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2010) AU - Naumann, Julie AU - Vick, Jaclyn AU - Nelson, Jean Y1 - 2010/08/01/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Aug 01 KW - Chlorophyll KW - Coastal environments KW - Stress KW - Light effects KW - Coastal zone UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312928589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=95th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2010%29&rft.atitle=Atypical+chlorophyll+responses+to+stress+in+a+high+light+coastal+environment&rft.au=Naumann%2C+Julie%3BVick%2C+Jaclyn%3BNelson%2C+Jean&rft.aulast=Naumann&rft.aufirst=Julie&rft.date=2010-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=95th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://eco.confex.com/eco/2010/techprogram/index.htm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 23 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 71, DOVRE TOWNSHIP, KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 23 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 71, DOVRE TOWNSHIP, KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 873129761; 14543-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of one or more grade-separated bridge crossings of Trunk Highway 23 and U.S. 71 in the Dovre Township of Kandiyohi County, Minnesota is proposed. The 3.5-mile study corridor extends from the Highway 294 and Highway 23/71 divergence, approximately 0.5 mile north of the Civic Center Drive interchange, to the divergence of Highway 23 and Highway 71 in the Dovre Township, northeast of the city of Willmar. Highway 23 is a principal northeast-southwest trunk highway serving as a diagonal route between Interstate 35 (I-35) at Sandstone and I-90 in Rock County. Highway 71 is a north-south component of the National Highway System connecting communities in west-central Minnesota, from International Falls to the Iowa border south of Jackson. Both of the highways connect citizens and communities to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. This condensed final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, four freeway build alternatives, and four alternatives addressing access to the freeway from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast, by which several private properties and users of Point Lake reach Highway 23/71. The freeway build alternatives would result in the closure of all at-grade access and the construction of either one or two interchanges. The preferred two-interchange option (Alternative 2B) would place interchanges at relocated County Road (CR) 90 (South alignment) and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25. The single-interchange option would place an interchange at CR 90 and close at-grade access to Highway 23/71 at CSAH 25. Four design options to remedy the closure of access to Highway 23/71 from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast are also considered. Under the preferred option (Access Alternative N2), a local roadway would provide access to CSAH 27 from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast and reestablish access to developments along the north shore of Point Lake. Other access management improvements would include street, driveway, and median closures. Connecting adjacent frontage roads and local roadway improvements would also be incorporated. Estimated total cost of the project is $25 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By removing local street access from Highway 23/71, the project would improve operational efficiency of the facility, reducing congestion and the potential for vehicular collisions and improving air quality within the corridor. The new interchanges and Twenty-sixth Street connector would ensure safe local access to the improved facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternatives would require 51.6 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 17 acres of farmland, 2.64 acres of wetlands as well as parkland and recreational land. Highway development would also require the relocation of two residences and two businesses. Utilities would also require relocation. Addition of impervious surface within the construction zones would result in higher peak flows at culvert crossings and affect water quality in Hawk Creek and Point, Eagle, Swan, and Skataas lakes. Several sensitive receptor sites would experience traffic generated noise in excess of federal standards. 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 08-0213D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100290, Final EIS--111 pages and maps, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Lakes KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota 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/873129761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+AND+U.S.+HIGHWAY+71%2C+DOVRE+TOWNSHIP%2C+KANDIYOHI+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+AND+U.S.+HIGHWAY+71%2C+DOVRE+TOWNSHIP%2C+KANDIYOHI+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CALEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CALEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527086; 14542-100289_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project involving the nourishment of 3,412 feet of beach within the city of San Clemente, California is proposed. San Clemente is located 60 miles south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County near the border of San Diego County and the study area extends from Linda Lane to T-Street. Beach erosion is an ongoing problem along the San Clemente shoreline. Over the past 20 years, average beach widths have been gradually reduced to about 50 feet, a reduction of more than 50 percent compared to beach measurements from 1958 and 1981. Changes to the beach shoreline caused by erosion have reduced recreational opportunities and are threatening the stability of City facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor. A No Action Alternative and two beach fill alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternatives. Sand would be delivered from available borrow sites at San Clemente and Oceanside to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. For the hopper dredge with pumpout, temporary nearshore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 30-foot depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines. Under the 50-foot beach width alternative, which is the recommended plan, 251,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand would be placed to create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 76 feet. Up to 26 feet of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. The second beach fill alternative would require approximately 586,000 cubic yards of sand to create a post-construction dry beach width of 171 feet and a post-equilibration dry beach of 115 feet. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete. Regardless of the action alternative chosen, the proposed project would be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. Dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, six days a week. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012, but could begin as soon as 2010. Depending upon available funding, maintenance nourishment efforts would occur when the shoreline reaches the base beach width and would return the beach to the 50-foot design beach width and would involve up to 251,000 cubic yards of material. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development and maintenance of the beach would prevent the severe erosion that results from winter storms and prevent damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the city. Beach replenishment would maintain or increase tourism with consequential benefit to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Most benthic invertebrates within dredged areas would be killed and discharge of offshore sand onto receiver beaches would bury intertidal invertebrates. Offshore movement of the sand placed on the beach would likely result in significant burial of surfgrass and high value reef habitat that supports kelp beds which are particularly important habitats for many species of fish. Turbidity plumes generated during beach fill operations could interfere with foraging by gulls, terns, pelicans, and cormorants. Dredging at offshore borrow sites could alter nearshore wave conditions with unknown effects on surfing conditions. Based on a 50-foot wide beach, and an estimated 12.8 feet/year erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill would last about 6 years on average. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100289, Volume I--290 pages, Volume II--414 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CALEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CALEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CALEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CALEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527019; 14542-100289_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project involving the nourishment of 3,412 feet of beach within the city of San Clemente, California is proposed. San Clemente is located 60 miles south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County near the border of San Diego County and the study area extends from Linda Lane to T-Street. Beach erosion is an ongoing problem along the San Clemente shoreline. Over the past 20 years, average beach widths have been gradually reduced to about 50 feet, a reduction of more than 50 percent compared to beach measurements from 1958 and 1981. Changes to the beach shoreline caused by erosion have reduced recreational opportunities and are threatening the stability of City facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor. A No Action Alternative and two beach fill alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternatives. Sand would be delivered from available borrow sites at San Clemente and Oceanside to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. For the hopper dredge with pumpout, temporary nearshore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 30-foot depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines. Under the 50-foot beach width alternative, which is the recommended plan, 251,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand would be placed to create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 76 feet. Up to 26 feet of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. The second beach fill alternative would require approximately 586,000 cubic yards of sand to create a post-construction dry beach width of 171 feet and a post-equilibration dry beach of 115 feet. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete. Regardless of the action alternative chosen, the proposed project would be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. Dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, six days a week. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012, but could begin as soon as 2010. Depending upon available funding, maintenance nourishment efforts would occur when the shoreline reaches the base beach width and would return the beach to the 50-foot design beach width and would involve up to 251,000 cubic yards of material. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development and maintenance of the beach would prevent the severe erosion that results from winter storms and prevent damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the city. Beach replenishment would maintain or increase tourism with consequential benefit to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Most benthic invertebrates within dredged areas would be killed and discharge of offshore sand onto receiver beaches would bury intertidal invertebrates. Offshore movement of the sand placed on the beach would likely result in significant burial of surfgrass and high value reef habitat that supports kelp beds which are particularly important habitats for many species of fish. Turbidity plumes generated during beach fill operations could interfere with foraging by gulls, terns, pelicans, and cormorants. Dredging at offshore borrow sites could alter nearshore wave conditions with unknown effects on surfing conditions. Based on a 50-foot wide beach, and an estimated 12.8 feet/year erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill would last about 6 years on average. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100289, Volume I--290 pages, Volume II--414 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CALEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&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 the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 23 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 71, DOVRE TOWNSHIP, KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 755143312; 14543 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of one or more grade-separated bridge crossings of Trunk Highway 23 and U.S. 71 in the Dovre Township of Kandiyohi County, Minnesota is proposed. The 3.5-mile study corridor extends from the Highway 294 and Highway 23/71 divergence, approximately 0.5 mile north of the Civic Center Drive interchange, to the divergence of Highway 23 and Highway 71 in the Dovre Township, northeast of the city of Willmar. Highway 23 is a principal northeast-southwest trunk highway serving as a diagonal route between Interstate 35 (I-35) at Sandstone and I-90 in Rock County. Highway 71 is a north-south component of the National Highway System connecting communities in west-central Minnesota, from International Falls to the Iowa border south of Jackson. Both of the highways connect citizens and communities to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. This condensed final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, four freeway build alternatives, and four alternatives addressing access to the freeway from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast, by which several private properties and users of Point Lake reach Highway 23/71. The freeway build alternatives would result in the closure of all at-grade access and the construction of either one or two interchanges. The preferred two-interchange option (Alternative 2B) would place interchanges at relocated County Road (CR) 90 (South alignment) and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25. The single-interchange option would place an interchange at CR 90 and close at-grade access to Highway 23/71 at CSAH 25. Four design options to remedy the closure of access to Highway 23/71 from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast are also considered. Under the preferred option (Access Alternative N2), a local roadway would provide access to CSAH 27 from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast and reestablish access to developments along the north shore of Point Lake. Other access management improvements would include street, driveway, and median closures. Connecting adjacent frontage roads and local roadway improvements would also be incorporated. Estimated total cost of the project is $25 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By removing local street access from Highway 23/71, the project would improve operational efficiency of the facility, reducing congestion and the potential for vehicular collisions and improving air quality within the corridor. The new interchanges and Twenty-sixth Street connector would ensure safe local access to the improved facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternatives would require 51.6 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 17 acres of farmland, 2.64 acres of wetlands as well as parkland and recreational land. Highway development would also require the relocation of two residences and two businesses. Utilities would also require relocation. Addition of impervious surface within the construction zones would result in higher peak flows at culvert crossings and affect water quality in Hawk Creek and Point, Eagle, Swan, and Skataas lakes. Several sensitive receptor sites would experience traffic generated noise in excess of federal standards. 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 08-0213D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100290, Final EIS--111 pages and maps, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Lakes KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota 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/755143312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+AND+U.S.+HIGHWAY+71%2C+DOVRE+TOWNSHIP%2C+KANDIYOHI+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+AND+U.S.+HIGHWAY+71%2C+DOVRE+TOWNSHIP%2C+KANDIYOHI+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CALEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 755142676; 14542 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project involving the nourishment of 3,412 feet of beach within the city of San Clemente, California is proposed. San Clemente is located 60 miles south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County near the border of San Diego County and the study area extends from Linda Lane to T-Street. Beach erosion is an ongoing problem along the San Clemente shoreline. Over the past 20 years, average beach widths have been gradually reduced to about 50 feet, a reduction of more than 50 percent compared to beach measurements from 1958 and 1981. Changes to the beach shoreline caused by erosion have reduced recreational opportunities and are threatening the stability of City facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor. A No Action Alternative and two beach fill alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternatives. Sand would be delivered from available borrow sites at San Clemente and Oceanside to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. For the hopper dredge with pumpout, temporary nearshore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 30-foot depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines. Under the 50-foot beach width alternative, which is the recommended plan, 251,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand would be placed to create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 76 feet. Up to 26 feet of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. The second beach fill alternative would require approximately 586,000 cubic yards of sand to create a post-construction dry beach width of 171 feet and a post-equilibration dry beach of 115 feet. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete. Regardless of the action alternative chosen, the proposed project would be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. Dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, six days a week. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012, but could begin as soon as 2010. Depending upon available funding, maintenance nourishment efforts would occur when the shoreline reaches the base beach width and would return the beach to the 50-foot design beach width and would involve up to 251,000 cubic yards of material. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development and maintenance of the beach would prevent the severe erosion that results from winter storms and prevent damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the city. Beach replenishment would maintain or increase tourism with consequential benefit to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Most benthic invertebrates within dredged areas would be killed and discharge of offshore sand onto receiver beaches would bury intertidal invertebrates. Offshore movement of the sand placed on the beach would likely result in significant burial of surfgrass and high value reef habitat that supports kelp beds which are particularly important habitats for many species of fish. Turbidity plumes generated during beach fill operations could interfere with foraging by gulls, terns, pelicans, and cormorants. Dredging at offshore borrow sites could alter nearshore wave conditions with unknown effects on surfing conditions. Based on a 50-foot wide beach, and an estimated 12.8 feet/year erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill would last about 6 years on average. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100289, Volume I--290 pages, Volume II--414 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755142676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CALEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CALEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 23 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873134147; 14539-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 22 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873134145; 14539-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 21 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873134141; 14539-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873134138; 14539-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873134134; 14539-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 12 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873134059; 14539-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 11 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873134057; 14539-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 7 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873133811; 14539-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873133807; 14539-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873133512; 14539-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873133505; 14539-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 69 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132504; 14539-6_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 59 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132497; 14539-6_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 58 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132491; 14539-6_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 57 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132479; 14539-6_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 50 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132469; 14539-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 20 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132463; 14539-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132463?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 49 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132450; 14539-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 6 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132444; 14539-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 48 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132433; 14539-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 43 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132422; 14539-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 42 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132411; 14539-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 41 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132397; 14539-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 37 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132377; 14539-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 36 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132364; 14539-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 33 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132352; 14539-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 32 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132347; 14539-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 31 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132335; 14539-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 68 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132179; 14539-6_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 67 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132166; 14539-6_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 66 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132158; 14539-6_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 53 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132148; 14539-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132148?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 52 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132132; 14539-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 51 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132121; 14539-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 40 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132097; 14539-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 39 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132084; 14539-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 10 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131976; 14539-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&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 Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 9 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131969; 14539-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 8 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131965; 14539-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 65 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131924; 14539-6_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 64 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131918; 14539-6_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 63 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131913; 14539-6_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 56 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131900; 14539-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 54 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131877; 14539-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 47 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131863; 14539-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 35 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131853; 14539-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 34 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131840; 14539-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 46 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131599; 14539-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 44 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131578; 14539-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 30 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131566; 14539-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 29 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131552; 14539-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 61 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131370; 14539-6_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 71 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131211; 14539-6_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 70 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131192; 14539-6_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 15 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130983; 14539-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 14 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130972; 14539-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130972?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 13 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130847; 14539-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 18 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130786; 14539-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 17 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130410; 14539-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 16 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130383; 14539-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 28 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130150; 14539-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 27 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130138; 14539-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 25 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129802; 14539-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 24 of 71] T2 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129772; 14539-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY, FROM THE INTERCHANGE AT I-526 AND U.S. 17 TO THE JAMES ISLAND CONNECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 755142659; 14539 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seven-mile portion of the Mark Clark Expressway (Interstate 526) from U.S. 17 (Savannah Highway) to the James Island Connector at Folly Road, Charleston County, South Carolina is proposed. The study area encompasses the majority of the existing roadway network in West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island west of the Charleston peninsula where studies show that traffic volumes on 55 percent of the main thoroughfares exceed capacity during peak hours. Since the early 1970's, the original plan for the Mark Clark Expressway proposed a Charleston Inner Belt Freeway and portions of the expressway were constructed in the 1980's and early 1990's. The proposed multi-lane, controlled-access roadway would include two bridges over the Stono River. Two typical sections were developed for the reasonable alternatives of this project, an interstate facility and a parkway facility. The interstate facility would consist of a controlled-access, four-lane highway divided with a concrete barrier median on a 250-foot right of way with a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph). The parkway facility would have four lanes and a posted speed of 35 to 45 mph, but would be divided by a 15-foot center median and include a multi-use path for its entire length. Eight alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Mass transit and transportation system management alternatives are also evaluated, but are not considered reasonable. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative G), a four-lane parkway with design speeds of 45 mph would extend 7.9 miles, with an additional 1.6 miles of connector roads, for a total length of 9.5 miles with 4.5 miles on structure and one crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining portions of the parkway would be at ground level, with a 15-foot wide raised planted median. A proposed interchange at U.S. 17 would be a single point urban interchange. Access to Johns Island would be provided by two limited-control access roads that would connect with the parkway at T-intersections to the north and south of Maybank Highway. On James Island, connections to the local road network would be provided at Riverland Drive, Riley Road, and Up on the Hill Road. The estimated cost for Alternative G is $489 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A completed project would increase the capacity of the regional transportation system, improve safety, and enhance mobility to and from the West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island areas near Charleston. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require fill in 17.4 acres of wetlands and impact 939 linear feet of stream and 132.1 acres of floodplains. Relocation of 22 residences and four businesses would be required. Right-of-way acquisition would bridge over the West Ashley Greenway, require portions of the James Island County Park, and impact the Fenwick Hall Historic District and one archaeological site. Noise levels would approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for 134 receptors. Construction workers would encounter eight hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100286, Draft EIS--647 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--820 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--525 pages and maps, July 27, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina KW - Stono River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755142659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARK+CLARK+EXPRESSWAY%2C+FROM+THE+INTERCHANGE+AT+I-526+AND+U.S.+17+TO+THE+JAMES+ISLAND+CONNECTOR%2C+CHARLESTON+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 41 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132670; 14525-1_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 40 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132655; 14525-1_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 39 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132627; 14525-1_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 38 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132620; 14525-1_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 15 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132609; 14525-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 7 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132590; 14525-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 6 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132571; 14525-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 34 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132418; 14525-1_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 17 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132399; 14525-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 9 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132373; 14525-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 3 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132355; 14525-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 2 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132349; 14525-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 36 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132186; 14525-1_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 35 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132178; 14525-1_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 5 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132162; 14525-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 26 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132113; 14525-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 25 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132101; 14525-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 21 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132066; 14525-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 18 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132055; 14525-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 11 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132049; 14525-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 10 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873132045; 14525-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 33 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873131464; 14525-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 32 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873131455; 14525-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131455?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 29 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873131449; 14525-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 28 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873131442; 14525-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 27 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873131431; 14525-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 24 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873131413; 14525-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 23 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873131382; 14525-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 16 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873131359; 14525-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 14 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130807; 14525-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 13 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130794; 14525-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 12 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130784; 14525-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 4 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130726; 14525-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 31 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130462; 14525-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 30 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130451; 14525-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 43 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130429; 14525-1_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 22 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130428; 14525-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 42 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130407; 14525-1_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 37 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130380; 14525-1_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 8 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130374; 14525-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 20 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130246; 14525-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 19 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873130197; 14525-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. [Part 1 of 43] T2 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 873128005; 14525-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUAM AND CNMI MILITARY RELOCATION, RELOCATING MARINES FROM OKINAWA, VISITING AIRCRAFT CARRIER BERTHING, AND ARMY AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TASK FORCE, GUAM. AN - 755143347; 14525 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of Marine Corps forces currently based in Okinawa, Japan to Guam, wharf reconstruction in Guam's Apra Harbor, and relocation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) to Guam are proposed. Project locations include Guam and Tinian, both part of the Mariana Islands archipelago. The Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) military relocation actions are a complex, multi-service proposal involving components of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Army, as well as existing Air Force assets on Guam. Specifically, the actions would develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 8,600 Marines and their 9,000 dependents, construct a new deep-draft wharf with shoreside infrastructure improvements to support a transient nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and develop and construct facilities and infrastructure to support 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to establish and operate an AMDTF. Several action alternatives and a No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions are evaluated in this final overseas EIS. Under the preferred main cantonment alternative, land parcels from Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Finegayan,South Finegayan, and acquisition of Federal Aviation Administration land, would comprise one contiguous parcel of 2,580 acres for new facilities. Four sites are analyzed for the proposed Marine Corps airfield functions and Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) North Ramp is the only reasonable alternative. Apra Harbor is the only deep water port on the Island of Guam and is the only location with sufficient road, utility, and naval infrastructure to support a transient aircraft carrier berth. The preferred alternative is to construct a new deep-draft wharf at Polaris Point and to widen the existing outer Apra Harbor channel to 600 feet. However, selection of a specific site for the transient aircraft carrier berth within Apra Harbor is being deferred for the near term while additional data on marine resources in the harbor is collected. Of the geographic alternatives analyzed for the location of firing and non-firing training ranges, two reasonable alternatives on the east coast of Guam would require acquisition or lease of either 1,090 acres or 1,800 acres. The preferred alternative for training on Tinian would involve construction of four ranges within the leaseback area on the island. The preferred alternative for proposed AMDTF headquarters and housing would involve co-locating Army support facilities with the proposed Marine Corps units at NCTS Finegayan and the preferred alternative for munitions storage would involve construction of magazines at Andersen AFB. Utilities and roadways projects would include upgrades to power systems, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, and construction of roadway projects that could be partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Projects would include intersection improvements, bridge replacements, pavement strengthening, roadway relocation, and new road construction. Additional potable water capacity of 11.3 million gallons per day would be supplied by an estimated 22 new wells at Andersen AFB, rehabilitation of existing wells, and interconnection with the Guam Waterworks Authority water system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would position military forces within a timely response range to defend the homeland, Japan, and other allies' interests. The powerful U.S. presence in the Pacific region would provide the flexibility to respond to regional threats and would maintain regional stability, peace, and security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary water quality impacts on near shore waters and significant direct impacts to the coral reef ecosystem would result from dredging in Apra Harbor. Roadway noise would be a significant impact in the north and central areas of Guam. Activities associated with the relocations would adversely affect 34 archaeological resources. Wastewater treatment facilities would require upgrades. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12114. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0346D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100271, Volumes 1-8--CD-ROM, Volume 9 (Appendices)--CD-ROM, Volume 10 (Public Comments)--CD-ROM (2, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Defense Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Municipal Services KW - Munitions KW - Population KW - Roads KW - Ships KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Andersen Air Force Base Guam KW - Apra Harbor Naval Complex KW - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands KW - Guam KW - Executive Order 12114, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755143347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.title=GUAM+AND+CNMI+MILITARY+RELOCATION%2C+RELOCATING+MARINES+FROM+OKINAWA%2C+VISITING+AIRCRAFT+CARRIER+BERTHING%2C+AND+ARMY+AIR+AND+MISSILE+DEFENSE+TASK+FORCE%2C+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - R.J. CORMAN RAILROAD COMPANY/PENNSYLVANIA LINES INC. PROJECT, CLEARFIELD AND CENTRE COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DOCKET NO. FD 35116). AN - 755142748; 14533 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and reactivation of 20 miles of rail line in Clearfield and Centre counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. On May 20, 2008, R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc. (RJCP) filed a petition for an exemption from the prior approval requirements to construct and operate an abandoned 10.8-mile rail line between Wallaceton and Winburne in Clearfield County (the Western Segment) and to reactivate a connecting 9.3-mile portion of currently rail banked line between Winburne and Gorton in Clearfield and Centre Counties (the Eastern Segment). The proposed rail line would serve a new quarry, landfill, and industrial park currently being developed by Resource Recovery, LLC (RRLLC), near Gorton, Pennsylvania, as well as several other interested shippers along the line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the proposed landfill, quarry, and industrial park development, and the planned transport of municipal solid waste by RJCP. Concerns voiced included the potential for odors, vermin/vectors for disease, containment during transport, leakage during transport, environmental damage/degradation associated with a potential derailment, and quality of life issues for adjacent property owners. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative, a modified proposed action that would use an alternate route for a portion of the Western Segment, and a No-Build Alternative that would involve a local road system upgrade. The modified proposed action would entail continued use of RJCPs existing Wallaceton Subdivision line south of Wallaceton to a point near Philipsburg where a new connection would be built to another 5.8-mile abandoned rail line leading northeast to Munson (formerly referred to as the Philipsburg Industrial Track). Under either of the build alternatives, RJCP proposes to construct a single-track line on a 66-foot right-of-way over the approximately 20-mile project length and to operate common carrier service over the 20 miles of line. At peak capacity, RJCP anticipates that it would serve the RRLLC development and other local shippers with one or at most two unit trains daily. The local road system upgrade alternative would involve improving the existing local road system to accommodate the anticipated volume of truck traffic generated by RRLLCs proposed landfill/development site and interested shippers who would use the proposed rail line if it were available. The modified proposed action is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide rail transportation service to a new quarry, landfill, and industrial park as well as to several other shippers. The proposed rail line could keep up to 1,100 trucks per day off the local road system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reactivation of the rail banked Eastern Segment would result in the loss of approximately 9.3 miles of the Snow Shoe Multi-Use Rail Trail. Implementation of the modified proposed action would impact 3.36 acres of wetlands, cross five public roads and two private driveways, and create noise impacts to 32 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: National Trails System Act of 1968. JF - EPA number: 100280, Volume 1--492 pages, Volume 2--151 maps, July 23, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755142748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=R.J.+CORMAN+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2FPENNSYLVANIA+LINES+INC.+PROJECT%2C+CLEARFIELD+AND+CENTRE+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DOCKET+NO.+FD+35116%29.&rft.title=R.J.+CORMAN+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2FPENNSYLVANIA+LINES+INC.+PROJECT%2C+CLEARFIELD+AND+CENTRE+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DOCKET+NO.+FD+35116%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133173; 14526-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132789; 14526-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131308; 14526-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131304; 14526-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131299; 14526-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131282; 14526-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131267; 14526-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131253; 14526-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129808; 14526-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129560; 14526-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129383; 14526-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 755143340; 14526 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755143340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 34 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873132002; 14498-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 32 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131995; 14498-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 28 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131990; 14498-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 27 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131984; 14498-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 26 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131978; 14498-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 24 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131970; 14498-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131970?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 42 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131790; 14498-3_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 41 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131781; 14498-3_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 33 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131767; 14498-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 29 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131760; 14498-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 23 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131598; 14505-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 37 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131591; 14498-3_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 22 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131588; 14505-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 30 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131577; 14498-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 10 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131574; 14505-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 9 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131565; 14505-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 22 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131560; 14498-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 8 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131555; 14505-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 7 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131542; 14505-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 6 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131535; 14505-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 21 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131312; 14498-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 20 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131297; 14498-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 8 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131165; 14498-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 7 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131159; 14498-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 6 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131150; 14498-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 5 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131138; 14498-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 19 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131127; 14498-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 4 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131125; 14498-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 23 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131124; 14498-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 18 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131113; 14498-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 41 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131108; 14505-0_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 40 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131096; 14505-0_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 39 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131078; 14505-0_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 38 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131069; 14505-0_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 11 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131059; 14505-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873131059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 17 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131019; 14498-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 16 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873131009; 14498-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 15 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130993; 14498-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 14 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130986; 14498-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 3 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130973; 14498-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 2 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130963; 14498-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 1 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130956; 14498-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 43 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873130949; 14505-0_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873130949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 13 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130943; 14498-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 42 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873130940; 14505-0_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873130940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 24 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873130930; 14505-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873130930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 12 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130927; 14498-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 11 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130913; 14498-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 10 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130899; 14498-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 2 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873130893; 14505-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873130893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 9 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130885; 14498-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=1996-01-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=48&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Dysphagia&rft.issn=0179051X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873130883; 14505-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873130883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 40 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130215; 14498-3_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 39 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130075; 14498-3_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 38 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130051; 14498-3_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 25 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873130031; 14498-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 13 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129870; 14505-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 12 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129837; 14505-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 37 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129714; 14505-0_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 36 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129701; 14505-0_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 31 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129656; 14505-0_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 34 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129653; 14505-0_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 36 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873129644; 14498-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 30 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129640; 14505-0_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129640?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 35 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873129629; 14498-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 33 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129622; 14505-0_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 31 of 42] T2 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 873129611; 14498-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 32 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129074; 14505-0_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 21 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129066; 14505-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 17 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129052; 14505-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 20 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129050; 14505-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 19 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129036; 14505-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 15 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873129008; 14505-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873129008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 26 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873128898; 14505-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873128898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 18 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873128885; 14505-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873128885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 29 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873128851; 14505-0_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873128851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 28 of 43] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873128839; 14505-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/873128839?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 754908344; 14505 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit applications 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 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. The applicants include companies who would: own and operate dredging equipment, tug boats, and barges and who would dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to their own onshore sand plants; own onshore sand plants and contract with other companies to dredge sand and gravel from within their requested dredging reaches and deliver it to onshore sand plants; and own dredging equipment and contract to deliver sand and gravel dredged from their requested dredging reaches to onshore plants owned by other companies. All applicants are existing dredge operators or contractors on the LOMR, except for The Masters Dredging Company, Inc., and Edward N. Rau Contractor Company. 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. In addition, two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on December 31, 2010. 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. 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. Alternatives A and B would restrict commercial dredging to levels that would reasonably be expected to reduce the contribution of sand and gravel dredging to continued river bed degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued dredging would increase 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. Under alternatives A and B, 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.). JF - EPA number: 100270, 1,316 pages and maps, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology 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/754908344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-16&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIRC-WILLISTON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 754907652; 14498 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of roadway improvements within the transportation corridor extending from Interstate 89 (I-89) and the towns of Williston and Essex and the Village of Essex Junction in Chitttenden County, Vermont is proposed. Existing and projected deficiencies within the corridor include traffic congestion, safety and mobility problems, and excessive truck traffic on local roads. The proposed Circ-Williston Transportation Project has resulted from numerous studies and planning documents regarding the improvement of transportation in and around Williston and Essex that were undertaken since the late 1950s, and a more recent scoping and alternatives screening analysis as part of this EIS process. Eleven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives are organized into three categories: the VT 2A alternatives, the Circ A/B alternatives, and the Hybrid alternatives. The VT 2A alternatives involve improvements to Vermont (VT) 2A from I-89 at Exit 12 in Williston to Five Corners in Essex Junction, including varying degrees of roadway widening, as well as intersection and roundabout improvements. The Circ A/B alternatives would involve the construction of a new roadway connecting I-89 in Williston to VT 289 in Essex within the existing Circ A/B rights-of-way. The Circ A/B alternatives would also require the construction of a new bridge over the Winooski River and interchange ramps to connect the new roadway to an existing interchange at the intersection of VT 289 and VT 117. The Hybrid Alternatives would combine widening and intersection improvements on VT 2A with a local street-type roadway in the Circ A right-of-way from I-89 to Mountain View Road. The preferred alternative (Alternative 17) is one of the Circ A/B alternatives and would involve the construction of a new four-lane boulevard, primarily in the Circ A/B corridor, connecting I-89 to VT 289. The facility would feature two travel lanes in each direction, separated by an eight to 16 foot wide raised median, and would include a trumpet interchange connection with I-89 in Williston, signalized intersections at US 2 and Mountain View Road, and a connection to VT 289 and VT 117 in Essex. The speed limit on the new roadway would be 40 mph. Estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $75.5 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Circ-Williston Transportation Project would improve access to, from, and, within the project area in northwestern Vermont. The new and improved facilities would relieve congestion at intersections and on roadway segment between intersections, improve safety, reduce truck traffic on local roads, and generally improve mobility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require acquisition of 7.3 acres of farmland; four full and 11 partial property acquisitions; displacement of 59.1 acres of forested land and 21.8 acres of wetlands; and displacement of 5.17 acres of deer wintering habitat. Impacts to the rough avens, a federally protected plant species, could occur at the crossing of Allen Brook. Noise impacts would occur in the vicinity of 52 sensitive receptors. Visual aesthetics along the build corridors would be degraded, particularly in residential areas. Construction workers would likely encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Transportation Act of 1982, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0393D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100263, 789 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 16, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Transportation Act of 1982, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=CIRC-WILLISTON+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CHITTENDEN+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PASCAGOULA HARBOR NAVIGATION CHANNEL, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1985). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - PASCAGOULA HARBOR NAVIGATION CHANNEL, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1985). AN - 873129042; 14497-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of authorized improvements to the Pascagoula Harbor Federal Navigation Project (Pascagoula Harbor Navigation Channel) in Jackson County, Mississippi is proposed. The Port of Pascagoula is Mississippi's largest port in terms of annual waterborne tonnage and serves as the center of the state's fishing industry. The Port has two harbors, Pascagoula River Harbor and Bayou Casotte Harbor. This final supplemental EIS updates the final EIS of July 1985, which evaluated the potential for widening and deepening the channels associated with the existing Pascagoula Harbor, as well as the 1991 final EIS on the designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site offshore of Pascagoula. The recommended improvements were completed in 1999, with the exception of the widening of the Gulf Entrance Channel to 550 feet and deepening of the Upper Pascagoula Channel to 42 feet. Under the current proposal, the authorized channel dimensions would include widening the Gulf Entrance Channel from 450 feet to 550 feet, deepening the Pascagoula Channel between Bayou Casotte Channel and a point one mile south of the rail bridge in the Pascagoula River from 38 feet to 42 feet, and deepening the Horn Island impoundment basin from 44 feet to 56 feet. In addition to the proposed action, this supplemental EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The additional channel and basin enlargements would improve the economic efficiency of the port in moving commodities in and out of the harbor; increase navigational safety in Pascagoula River Harbor and Bayou Casotte Harbor, thereby reducing hazards to life and property from accidents; and provide for appropriate disposal of dredged material generated by project improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and offshore disposal activities would result in the smothering of benthic invertebrates and the short-term loss of benthic habitat. Fin fish communities would also suffer temporary disruption, though to a lesser extent. The project would temporarily displace bivalves and mollusks as well as crustaceans. Marine and coastal birds nesting and other habitat, including roosting habitat for federally protected piping plover, at the western end of Petit Bois Island could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1962, and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0300D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100262, 471 pages, July 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Shellfish KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi KW - Pascagoula Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PASCAGOULA+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1985%29.&rft.title=PASCAGOULA+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1985%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PASCAGOULA HARBOR NAVIGATION CHANNEL, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1985). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - PASCAGOULA HARBOR NAVIGATION CHANNEL, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1985). AN - 873129007; 14497-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of authorized improvements to the Pascagoula Harbor Federal Navigation Project (Pascagoula Harbor Navigation Channel) in Jackson County, Mississippi is proposed. The Port of Pascagoula is Mississippi's largest port in terms of annual waterborne tonnage and serves as the center of the state's fishing industry. The Port has two harbors, Pascagoula River Harbor and Bayou Casotte Harbor. This final supplemental EIS updates the final EIS of July 1985, which evaluated the potential for widening and deepening the channels associated with the existing Pascagoula Harbor, as well as the 1991 final EIS on the designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site offshore of Pascagoula. The recommended improvements were completed in 1999, with the exception of the widening of the Gulf Entrance Channel to 550 feet and deepening of the Upper Pascagoula Channel to 42 feet. Under the current proposal, the authorized channel dimensions would include widening the Gulf Entrance Channel from 450 feet to 550 feet, deepening the Pascagoula Channel between Bayou Casotte Channel and a point one mile south of the rail bridge in the Pascagoula River from 38 feet to 42 feet, and deepening the Horn Island impoundment basin from 44 feet to 56 feet. In addition to the proposed action, this supplemental EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The additional channel and basin enlargements would improve the economic efficiency of the port in moving commodities in and out of the harbor; increase navigational safety in Pascagoula River Harbor and Bayou Casotte Harbor, thereby reducing hazards to life and property from accidents; and provide for appropriate disposal of dredged material generated by project improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and offshore disposal activities would result in the smothering of benthic invertebrates and the short-term loss of benthic habitat. Fin fish communities would also suffer temporary disruption, though to a lesser extent. The project would temporarily displace bivalves and mollusks as well as crustaceans. Marine and coastal birds nesting and other habitat, including roosting habitat for federally protected piping plover, at the western end of Petit Bois Island could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1962, and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0300D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100262, 471 pages, July 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Shellfish KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi KW - Pascagoula Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PASCAGOULA+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1985%29.&rft.title=PASCAGOULA+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1985%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PASCAGOULA HARBOR NAVIGATION CHANNEL, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1985). AN - 754909196; 14497 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of authorized improvements to the Pascagoula Harbor Federal Navigation Project (Pascagoula Harbor Navigation Channel) in Jackson County, Mississippi is proposed. The Port of Pascagoula is Mississippi's largest port in terms of annual waterborne tonnage and serves as the center of the state's fishing industry. The Port has two harbors, Pascagoula River Harbor and Bayou Casotte Harbor. This final supplemental EIS updates the final EIS of July 1985, which evaluated the potential for widening and deepening the channels associated with the existing Pascagoula Harbor, as well as the 1991 final EIS on the designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site offshore of Pascagoula. The recommended improvements were completed in 1999, with the exception of the widening of the Gulf Entrance Channel to 550 feet and deepening of the Upper Pascagoula Channel to 42 feet. Under the current proposal, the authorized channel dimensions would include widening the Gulf Entrance Channel from 450 feet to 550 feet, deepening the Pascagoula Channel between Bayou Casotte Channel and a point one mile south of the rail bridge in the Pascagoula River from 38 feet to 42 feet, and deepening the Horn Island impoundment basin from 44 feet to 56 feet. In addition to the proposed action, this supplemental EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The additional channel and basin enlargements would improve the economic efficiency of the port in moving commodities in and out of the harbor; increase navigational safety in Pascagoula River Harbor and Bayou Casotte Harbor, thereby reducing hazards to life and property from accidents; and provide for appropriate disposal of dredged material generated by project improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and offshore disposal activities would result in the smothering of benthic invertebrates and the short-term loss of benthic habitat. Fin fish communities would also suffer temporary disruption, though to a lesser extent. The project would temporarily displace bivalves and mollusks as well as crustaceans. Marine and coastal birds nesting and other habitat, including roosting habitat for federally protected piping plover, at the western end of Petit Bois Island could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1962, and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0300D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100262, 471 pages, July 13, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Shellfish KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi KW - Pascagoula Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PASCAGOULA+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1985%29.&rft.title=PASCAGOULA+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1985%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Effective Nonlinear Schrodinger Equation for Dark Spatial Plasmon-Polariton Solitons T2 - 2010 SIAM Annual Meeting (AN10) AN - 1312907185; 5999233 JF - 2010 SIAM Annual Meeting (AN10) AU - Crutcher, Sihon Y1 - 2010/07/12/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jul 12 KW - Mathematical models KW - Solitons UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312907185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2010+SIAM+Annual+Meeting+%28AN10%29&rft.atitle=The+Effective+Nonlinear+Schrodinger+Equation+for+Dark+Spatial+Plasmon-Polariton+Solitons&rft.au=Crutcher%2C+Sihon&rft.aulast=Crutcher&rft.aufirst=Sihon&rft.date=2010-07-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+SIAM+Annual+Meeting+%28AN10%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://meetings.siam.org/program.cfm?CONFCODE=AN10 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A Workshop to Discuss Use of Registered Herbicides for Hydrilla Management in Florida Provides a Window into the Mind of Managers T2 - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AN - 1312926805; 5997416 JF - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AU - Netherland, Michael AU - Haller, William AU - Schardt, Jeffrey Y1 - 2010/07/11/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jul 11 KW - USA, Florida KW - Herbicides KW - Hydrilla UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312926805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.atitle=A+Workshop+to+Discuss+Use+of+Registered+Herbicides+for+Hydrilla+Management+in+Florida+Provides+a+Window+into+the+Mind+of+Managers&rft.au=Netherland%2C+Michael%3BHaller%2C+William%3BSchardt%2C+Jeffrey&rft.aulast=Netherland&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2010-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2010/Final%20Program%202010.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Age of Partnership: Weed Science and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency T2 - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AN - 1312914872; 5997469 JF - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AU - Getsinger, Kurt AU - Schroeder, Jill AU - Kenny, Dan AU - Van Wychen, Lee Y1 - 2010/07/11/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jul 11 KW - USA KW - weeds KW - EPA KW - Age KW - Weeds KW - Environmental protection UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312914872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.atitle=The+Age+of+Partnership%3A+Weed+Science+and+the+U.S.+Environmental+Protection+Agency&rft.au=Getsinger%2C+Kurt%3BSchroeder%2C+Jill%3BKenny%2C+Dan%3BVan+Wychen%2C+Lee&rft.aulast=Getsinger&rft.aufirst=Kurt&rft.date=2010-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2010/Final%20Program%202010.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Sampling of Herbicide Residuals Confirms Extended Exposure to Low Concentrations of 2,4-D and Triclopyr Can Control Eurasian Watermilfoil T2 - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AN - 1312881194; 5997440 JF - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AU - Glomski, LeeAnn AU - Netherland, Michael AU - Skogerboe, John Y1 - 2010/07/11/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jul 11 KW - 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid KW - Herbicides KW - 2,4-D KW - Sampling KW - triclopyr KW - Plant control KW - Introduced species UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312881194?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.atitle=Sampling+of+Herbicide+Residuals+Confirms+Extended+Exposure+to+Low+Concentrations+of+2%2C4-D+and+Triclopyr+Can+Control+Eurasian+Watermilfoil&rft.au=Glomski%2C+LeeAnn%3BNetherland%2C+Michael%3BSkogerboe%2C+John&rft.aulast=Glomski&rft.aufirst=LeeAnn&rft.date=2010-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2010/Final%20Program%202010.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Response of Giant Salvinia to Static and Sequential Penoxsulam Treatments Coupled with Various Exposure Times T2 - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AN - 1312870551; 5997457 JF - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AU - Mudge, Christopher AU - Nelson, Linda AU - Heilman, Mark Y1 - 2010/07/11/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jul 11 KW - Aquatic Plant Management KW - Marine biology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312870551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.atitle=Response+of+Giant+Salvinia+to+Static+and+Sequential+Penoxsulam+Treatments+Coupled+with+Various+Exposure+Times&rft.au=Mudge%2C+Christopher%3BNelson%2C+Linda%3BHeilman%2C+Mark&rft.aulast=Mudge&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2010-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2010/Final%20Program%202010.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Aluminum Sulfate Application to Improve Under-water Light Condition for Native Submersed Macrophyte Restoration: Alum to Phosphorus Binding Ratio Considerations T2 - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AN - 1312867568; 5997477 JF - 50th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS 2010) AU - James, William Y1 - 2010/07/11/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jul 11 KW - Phosphorus KW - Aluminum KW - Macrophytes KW - Sulfate KW - Aluminum sulfate KW - Light effects KW - Aquatic plants KW - Restoration UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312867568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.atitle=Aluminum+Sulfate+Application+to+Improve+Under-water+Light+Condition+for+Native+Submersed+Macrophyte+Restoration%3A+Alum+to+Phosphorus+Binding+Ratio+Considerations&rft.au=James%2C+William&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2010-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society+%28APMS+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2010/Final%20Program%202010.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 8 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132345; 14450-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 7 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132337; 14450-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 6 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132325; 14450-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 33 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131746; 14450-8_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 32 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131737; 14450-8_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 31 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131727; 14450-8_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 30 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131717; 14450-8_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 29 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131706; 14450-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 23 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131696; 14450-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 22 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131686; 14450-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131686?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 21 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131668; 14450-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131663; 14450-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 34 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131538; 14450-8_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 16 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131205; 14450-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 15 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131195; 14450-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 14 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131183; 14450-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 13 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131176; 14450-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131176?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 18 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131093; 14450-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 17 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131084; 14450-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 5 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131075; 14450-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 4 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130670; 14450-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130660; 14450-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130646; 14450-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 28 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129903; 14450-8_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 27 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129892; 14450-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 26 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129879; 14450-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 25 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129867; 14450-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 20 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127318; 14450-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 19 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127315; 14450-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 12 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127308; 14450-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 11 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127305; 14450-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=1995-07-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=155&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Dysphagia&rft.issn=0179051X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 10 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127295; 14450-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 9 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127289; 14450-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 24 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873126949; 14450-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Developmental+medicine+and+child+neurology&rft.atitle=The+self-concept+of+young+people+with+spina+bifida%3A+a+population-based+study.&rft.au=Appleton%2C+P+L%3BMinchom%2C+P+E%3BEllis%2C+N+C%3BElliott%2C+C+E%3BB%C3%B6ll%2C+V%3BJones%2C+P&rft.aulast=Appleton&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=1994-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=198&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Developmental+medicine+and+child+neurology&rft.issn=00121622&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 754907119; 14450 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255499; 14444-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a mixed-use development within the 3,828-acre Rio del Oro Specific Plan area in the city of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The project site is located in eastern Sacramento County, south of US 50, and is bounded on the north by White Rock Road, on the south by Douglas Road, and on the east by Sunrise Boulevard. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative are considered in this final EIS which incorporates the draft EIS of 2006 and the supplemental draft EIS of 2008. The Rio del Oro project has gone through several revisions in response to studies and best practices and the proposal has been modified to process the project in two separate phases or "tiers" of development approvals. The Tier One development agreements will vest the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and commit the city to consider future approval of the land uses and other details in the specific plan. The proposed project design would provide for the construction of 11,601 residential units in three residential land use classification areas on 1,920 acres. Commercial land use would include village commercial, local town center, and regional town center areas, together providing 153 acres of shopping centers. The plan would include an 86-acre business park and a 282-acre industrial park. Other land uses would include 63 acres of neighborhood recreational parks, 54 acres of private recreational facilities, 9.5 acres of public/quasi-public use areas, 44 acres of landscaped corridor, and 50 acres of greenbelt. Two elderberry preserve areas, totaling 24 acres, would be designated. In addition to 155 acres of drainage parkways, 39 acres of stormwater detention basins would be created in three separate locations. A 507-acre wetland preserve area would be situated in the southern portion of the project site. Designated school uses include allotments of 78 acres for a middle school/high school facility, with an adjacent 87-acre community park, a separate 20-acre middle school site, and 54 acres for six elementary schools. Approximately 227 acres would be allowed for roadways and the associated landscaping, along with a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails. Water supply, sewer, electrical, natural gas conveyance, and telecommunications infrastructure would be provided. Under the High Density Alternative, density would be increased such that 3,800 additional residential units would be constructed. Under the Impact Minimization Alternative, the level of residential development would be decreased by 470 acres and 1,040 residential units. The No Federal Action Alternative was designed to allow some development while avoiding the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Development under this alternative would incorporate a 50-foot wide avoidance buffer around jurisdictional wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development would provide housing and employment in a rapidly growing area of southern California. Orderly development of the site would prevent urban sprawl and blight. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The community would conflict with California Department of Education minimum size criteria for schools. Construction would damage or destroy historically significant buildings and other structures. An undeveloped, rural area would be converted to a densely developed multiple-use tract, destroying vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, damaging streams and wetlands, and degrading visual aesthetics. The development would result in highly significant increases in traffic, locally and regionally. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0276D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 07-0053D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100252, Volume I--453 pages, Volume II--637 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Industrial Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/876255499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255498; 14444-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a mixed-use development within the 3,828-acre Rio del Oro Specific Plan area in the city of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The project site is located in eastern Sacramento County, south of US 50, and is bounded on the north by White Rock Road, on the south by Douglas Road, and on the east by Sunrise Boulevard. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative are considered in this final EIS which incorporates the draft EIS of 2006 and the supplemental draft EIS of 2008. The Rio del Oro project has gone through several revisions in response to studies and best practices and the proposal has been modified to process the project in two separate phases or "tiers" of development approvals. The Tier One development agreements will vest the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and commit the city to consider future approval of the land uses and other details in the specific plan. The proposed project design would provide for the construction of 11,601 residential units in three residential land use classification areas on 1,920 acres. Commercial land use would include village commercial, local town center, and regional town center areas, together providing 153 acres of shopping centers. The plan would include an 86-acre business park and a 282-acre industrial park. Other land uses would include 63 acres of neighborhood recreational parks, 54 acres of private recreational facilities, 9.5 acres of public/quasi-public use areas, 44 acres of landscaped corridor, and 50 acres of greenbelt. Two elderberry preserve areas, totaling 24 acres, would be designated. In addition to 155 acres of drainage parkways, 39 acres of stormwater detention basins would be created in three separate locations. A 507-acre wetland preserve area would be situated in the southern portion of the project site. Designated school uses include allotments of 78 acres for a middle school/high school facility, with an adjacent 87-acre community park, a separate 20-acre middle school site, and 54 acres for six elementary schools. Approximately 227 acres would be allowed for roadways and the associated landscaping, along with a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails. Water supply, sewer, electrical, natural gas conveyance, and telecommunications infrastructure would be provided. Under the High Density Alternative, density would be increased such that 3,800 additional residential units would be constructed. Under the Impact Minimization Alternative, the level of residential development would be decreased by 470 acres and 1,040 residential units. The No Federal Action Alternative was designed to allow some development while avoiding the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Development under this alternative would incorporate a 50-foot wide avoidance buffer around jurisdictional wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development would provide housing and employment in a rapidly growing area of southern California. Orderly development of the site would prevent urban sprawl and blight. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The community would conflict with California Department of Education minimum size criteria for schools. Construction would damage or destroy historically significant buildings and other structures. An undeveloped, rural area would be converted to a densely developed multiple-use tract, destroying vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, damaging streams and wetlands, and degrading visual aesthetics. The development would result in highly significant increases in traffic, locally and regionally. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0276D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 07-0053D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100252, Volume I--453 pages, Volume II--637 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Industrial Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/876255498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255497; 14444-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a mixed-use development within the 3,828-acre Rio del Oro Specific Plan area in the city of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The project site is located in eastern Sacramento County, south of US 50, and is bounded on the north by White Rock Road, on the south by Douglas Road, and on the east by Sunrise Boulevard. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative are considered in this final EIS which incorporates the draft EIS of 2006 and the supplemental draft EIS of 2008. The Rio del Oro project has gone through several revisions in response to studies and best practices and the proposal has been modified to process the project in two separate phases or "tiers" of development approvals. The Tier One development agreements will vest the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and commit the city to consider future approval of the land uses and other details in the specific plan. The proposed project design would provide for the construction of 11,601 residential units in three residential land use classification areas on 1,920 acres. Commercial land use would include village commercial, local town center, and regional town center areas, together providing 153 acres of shopping centers. The plan would include an 86-acre business park and a 282-acre industrial park. Other land uses would include 63 acres of neighborhood recreational parks, 54 acres of private recreational facilities, 9.5 acres of public/quasi-public use areas, 44 acres of landscaped corridor, and 50 acres of greenbelt. Two elderberry preserve areas, totaling 24 acres, would be designated. In addition to 155 acres of drainage parkways, 39 acres of stormwater detention basins would be created in three separate locations. A 507-acre wetland preserve area would be situated in the southern portion of the project site. Designated school uses include allotments of 78 acres for a middle school/high school facility, with an adjacent 87-acre community park, a separate 20-acre middle school site, and 54 acres for six elementary schools. Approximately 227 acres would be allowed for roadways and the associated landscaping, along with a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails. Water supply, sewer, electrical, natural gas conveyance, and telecommunications infrastructure would be provided. Under the High Density Alternative, density would be increased such that 3,800 additional residential units would be constructed. Under the Impact Minimization Alternative, the level of residential development would be decreased by 470 acres and 1,040 residential units. The No Federal Action Alternative was designed to allow some development while avoiding the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Development under this alternative would incorporate a 50-foot wide avoidance buffer around jurisdictional wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development would provide housing and employment in a rapidly growing area of southern California. Orderly development of the site would prevent urban sprawl and blight. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The community would conflict with California Department of Education minimum size criteria for schools. Construction would damage or destroy historically significant buildings and other structures. An undeveloped, rural area would be converted to a densely developed multiple-use tract, destroying vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, damaging streams and wetlands, and degrading visual aesthetics. The development would result in highly significant increases in traffic, locally and regionally. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0276D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 07-0053D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100252, Volume I--453 pages, Volume II--637 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Industrial Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/876255497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255481; 14444-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a mixed-use development within the 3,828-acre Rio del Oro Specific Plan area in the city of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The project site is located in eastern Sacramento County, south of US 50, and is bounded on the north by White Rock Road, on the south by Douglas Road, and on the east by Sunrise Boulevard. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative are considered in this final EIS which incorporates the draft EIS of 2006 and the supplemental draft EIS of 2008. The Rio del Oro project has gone through several revisions in response to studies and best practices and the proposal has been modified to process the project in two separate phases or "tiers" of development approvals. The Tier One development agreements will vest the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and commit the city to consider future approval of the land uses and other details in the specific plan. The proposed project design would provide for the construction of 11,601 residential units in three residential land use classification areas on 1,920 acres. Commercial land use would include village commercial, local town center, and regional town center areas, together providing 153 acres of shopping centers. The plan would include an 86-acre business park and a 282-acre industrial park. Other land uses would include 63 acres of neighborhood recreational parks, 54 acres of private recreational facilities, 9.5 acres of public/quasi-public use areas, 44 acres of landscaped corridor, and 50 acres of greenbelt. Two elderberry preserve areas, totaling 24 acres, would be designated. In addition to 155 acres of drainage parkways, 39 acres of stormwater detention basins would be created in three separate locations. A 507-acre wetland preserve area would be situated in the southern portion of the project site. Designated school uses include allotments of 78 acres for a middle school/high school facility, with an adjacent 87-acre community park, a separate 20-acre middle school site, and 54 acres for six elementary schools. Approximately 227 acres would be allowed for roadways and the associated landscaping, along with a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails. Water supply, sewer, electrical, natural gas conveyance, and telecommunications infrastructure would be provided. Under the High Density Alternative, density would be increased such that 3,800 additional residential units would be constructed. Under the Impact Minimization Alternative, the level of residential development would be decreased by 470 acres and 1,040 residential units. The No Federal Action Alternative was designed to allow some development while avoiding the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Development under this alternative would incorporate a 50-foot wide avoidance buffer around jurisdictional wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development would provide housing and employment in a rapidly growing area of southern California. Orderly development of the site would prevent urban sprawl and blight. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The community would conflict with California Department of Education minimum size criteria for schools. Construction would damage or destroy historically significant buildings and other structures. An undeveloped, rural area would be converted to a densely developed multiple-use tract, destroying vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, damaging streams and wetlands, and degrading visual aesthetics. The development would result in highly significant increases in traffic, locally and regionally. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0276D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 07-0053D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100252, Volume I--453 pages, Volume II--637 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Industrial Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/876255481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255480; 14444-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a mixed-use development within the 3,828-acre Rio del Oro Specific Plan area in the city of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The project site is located in eastern Sacramento County, south of US 50, and is bounded on the north by White Rock Road, on the south by Douglas Road, and on the east by Sunrise Boulevard. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative are considered in this final EIS which incorporates the draft EIS of 2006 and the supplemental draft EIS of 2008. The Rio del Oro project has gone through several revisions in response to studies and best practices and the proposal has been modified to process the project in two separate phases or "tiers" of development approvals. The Tier One development agreements will vest the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and commit the city to consider future approval of the land uses and other details in the specific plan. The proposed project design would provide for the construction of 11,601 residential units in three residential land use classification areas on 1,920 acres. Commercial land use would include village commercial, local town center, and regional town center areas, together providing 153 acres of shopping centers. The plan would include an 86-acre business park and a 282-acre industrial park. Other land uses would include 63 acres of neighborhood recreational parks, 54 acres of private recreational facilities, 9.5 acres of public/quasi-public use areas, 44 acres of landscaped corridor, and 50 acres of greenbelt. Two elderberry preserve areas, totaling 24 acres, would be designated. In addition to 155 acres of drainage parkways, 39 acres of stormwater detention basins would be created in three separate locations. A 507-acre wetland preserve area would be situated in the southern portion of the project site. Designated school uses include allotments of 78 acres for a middle school/high school facility, with an adjacent 87-acre community park, a separate 20-acre middle school site, and 54 acres for six elementary schools. Approximately 227 acres would be allowed for roadways and the associated landscaping, along with a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails. Water supply, sewer, electrical, natural gas conveyance, and telecommunications infrastructure would be provided. Under the High Density Alternative, density would be increased such that 3,800 additional residential units would be constructed. Under the Impact Minimization Alternative, the level of residential development would be decreased by 470 acres and 1,040 residential units. The No Federal Action Alternative was designed to allow some development while avoiding the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Development under this alternative would incorporate a 50-foot wide avoidance buffer around jurisdictional wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development would provide housing and employment in a rapidly growing area of southern California. Orderly development of the site would prevent urban sprawl and blight. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The community would conflict with California Department of Education minimum size criteria for schools. Construction would damage or destroy historically significant buildings and other structures. An undeveloped, rural area would be converted to a densely developed multiple-use tract, destroying vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, damaging streams and wetlands, and degrading visual aesthetics. The development would result in highly significant increases in traffic, locally and regionally. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0276D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 07-0053D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100252, Volume I--453 pages, Volume II--637 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Industrial Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/876255480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255479; 14444-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a mixed-use development within the 3,828-acre Rio del Oro Specific Plan area in the city of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The project site is located in eastern Sacramento County, south of US 50, and is bounded on the north by White Rock Road, on the south by Douglas Road, and on the east by Sunrise Boulevard. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative are considered in this final EIS which incorporates the draft EIS of 2006 and the supplemental draft EIS of 2008. The Rio del Oro project has gone through several revisions in response to studies and best practices and the proposal has been modified to process the project in two separate phases or "tiers" of development approvals. The Tier One development agreements will vest the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and commit the city to consider future approval of the land uses and other details in the specific plan. The proposed project design would provide for the construction of 11,601 residential units in three residential land use classification areas on 1,920 acres. Commercial land use would include village commercial, local town center, and regional town center areas, together providing 153 acres of shopping centers. The plan would include an 86-acre business park and a 282-acre industrial park. Other land uses would include 63 acres of neighborhood recreational parks, 54 acres of private recreational facilities, 9.5 acres of public/quasi-public use areas, 44 acres of landscaped corridor, and 50 acres of greenbelt. Two elderberry preserve areas, totaling 24 acres, would be designated. In addition to 155 acres of drainage parkways, 39 acres of stormwater detention basins would be created in three separate locations. A 507-acre wetland preserve area would be situated in the southern portion of the project site. Designated school uses include allotments of 78 acres for a middle school/high school facility, with an adjacent 87-acre community park, a separate 20-acre middle school site, and 54 acres for six elementary schools. Approximately 227 acres would be allowed for roadways and the associated landscaping, along with a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails. Water supply, sewer, electrical, natural gas conveyance, and telecommunications infrastructure would be provided. Under the High Density Alternative, density would be increased such that 3,800 additional residential units would be constructed. Under the Impact Minimization Alternative, the level of residential development would be decreased by 470 acres and 1,040 residential units. The No Federal Action Alternative was designed to allow some development while avoiding the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Development under this alternative would incorporate a 50-foot wide avoidance buffer around jurisdictional wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development would provide housing and employment in a rapidly growing area of southern California. Orderly development of the site would prevent urban sprawl and blight. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The community would conflict with California Department of Education minimum size criteria for schools. Construction would damage or destroy historically significant buildings and other structures. An undeveloped, rural area would be converted to a densely developed multiple-use tract, destroying vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, damaging streams and wetlands, and degrading visual aesthetics. The development would result in highly significant increases in traffic, locally and regionally. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0276D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 07-0053D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100252, Volume I--453 pages, Volume II--637 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Industrial Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/876255479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255309; 14444-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a mixed-use development within the 3,828-acre Rio del Oro Specific Plan area in the city of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The project site is located in eastern Sacramento County, south of US 50, and is bounded on the north by White Rock Road, on the south by Douglas Road, and on the east by Sunrise Boulevard. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative are considered in this final EIS which incorporates the draft EIS of 2006 and the supplemental draft EIS of 2008. The Rio del Oro project has gone through several revisions in response to studies and best practices and the proposal has been modified to process the project in two separate phases or "tiers" of development approvals. The Tier One development agreements will vest the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and commit the city to consider future approval of the land uses and other details in the specific plan. The proposed project design would provide for the construction of 11,601 residential units in three residential land use classification areas on 1,920 acres. Commercial land use would include village commercial, local town center, and regional town center areas, together providing 153 acres of shopping centers. The plan would include an 86-acre business park and a 282-acre industrial park. Other land uses would include 63 acres of neighborhood recreational parks, 54 acres of private recreational facilities, 9.5 acres of public/quasi-public use areas, 44 acres of landscaped corridor, and 50 acres of greenbelt. Two elderberry preserve areas, totaling 24 acres, would be designated. In addition to 155 acres of drainage parkways, 39 acres of stormwater detention basins would be created in three separate locations. A 507-acre wetland preserve area would be situated in the southern portion of the project site. Designated school uses include allotments of 78 acres for a middle school/high school facility, with an adjacent 87-acre community park, a separate 20-acre middle school site, and 54 acres for six elementary schools. Approximately 227 acres would be allowed for roadways and the associated landscaping, along with a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails. Water supply, sewer, electrical, natural gas conveyance, and telecommunications infrastructure would be provided. Under the High Density Alternative, density would be increased such that 3,800 additional residential units would be constructed. Under the Impact Minimization Alternative, the level of residential development would be decreased by 470 acres and 1,040 residential units. The No Federal Action Alternative was designed to allow some development while avoiding the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Development under this alternative would incorporate a 50-foot wide avoidance buffer around jurisdictional wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development would provide housing and employment in a rapidly growing area of southern California. Orderly development of the site would prevent urban sprawl and blight. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The community would conflict with California Department of Education minimum size criteria for schools. Construction would damage or destroy historically significant buildings and other structures. An undeveloped, rural area would be converted to a densely developed multiple-use tract, destroying vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, damaging streams and wetlands, and degrading visual aesthetics. The development would result in highly significant increases in traffic, locally and regionally. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0276D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 07-0053D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100252, Volume I--453 pages, Volume II--637 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Industrial Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/876255309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876253972; 14444-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a mixed-use development within the 3,828-acre Rio del Oro Specific Plan area in the city of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The project site is located in eastern Sacramento County, south of US 50, and is bounded on the north by White Rock Road, on the south by Douglas Road, and on the east by Sunrise Boulevard. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative are considered in this final EIS which incorporates the draft EIS of 2006 and the supplemental draft EIS of 2008. The Rio del Oro project has gone through several revisions in response to studies and best practices and the proposal has been modified to process the project in two separate phases or "tiers" of development approvals. The Tier One development agreements will vest the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and commit the city to consider future approval of the land uses and other details in the specific plan. The proposed project design would provide for the construction of 11,601 residential units in three residential land use classification areas on 1,920 acres. Commercial land use would include village commercial, local town center, and regional town center areas, together providing 153 acres of shopping centers. The plan would include an 86-acre business park and a 282-acre industrial park. Other land uses would include 63 acres of neighborhood recreational parks, 54 acres of private recreational facilities, 9.5 acres of public/quasi-public use areas, 44 acres of landscaped corridor, and 50 acres of greenbelt. Two elderberry preserve areas, totaling 24 acres, would be designated. In addition to 155 acres of drainage parkways, 39 acres of stormwater detention basins would be created in three separate locations. A 507-acre wetland preserve area would be situated in the southern portion of the project site. Designated school uses include allotments of 78 acres for a middle school/high school facility, with an adjacent 87-acre community park, a separate 20-acre middle school site, and 54 acres for six elementary schools. Approximately 227 acres would be allowed for roadways and the associated landscaping, along with a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails. Water supply, sewer, electrical, natural gas conveyance, and telecommunications infrastructure would be provided. Under the High Density Alternative, density would be increased such that 3,800 additional residential units would be constructed. Under the Impact Minimization Alternative, the level of residential development would be decreased by 470 acres and 1,040 residential units. The No Federal Action Alternative was designed to allow some development while avoiding the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Development under this alternative would incorporate a 50-foot wide avoidance buffer around jurisdictional wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development would provide housing and employment in a rapidly growing area of southern California. Orderly development of the site would prevent urban sprawl and blight. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The community would conflict with California Department of Education minimum size criteria for schools. Construction would damage or destroy historically significant buildings and other structures. An undeveloped, rural area would be converted to a densely developed multiple-use tract, destroying vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, damaging streams and wetlands, and degrading visual aesthetics. The development would result in highly significant increases in traffic, locally and regionally. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0276D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 07-0053D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100252, Volume I--453 pages, Volume II--637 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Industrial Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/876253972?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 75 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132294; 14446-4_0075 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 74 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132280; 14446-4_0074 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 74 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131185; 14446-4_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131172; 14446-4_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131158; 14446-4_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131152; 14446-4_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131152?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131140; 14446-4_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131130; 14446-4_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131115; 14446-4_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131090; 14446-4_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131079; 14446-4_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131057; 14446-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131037; 14446-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 73 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131026; 14446-4_0073 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131023; 14446-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 72 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131016; 14446-4_0072 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131006; 14446-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Peer-To-Peer+Networking+and+Applications&rft.atitle=Robust+beamforming+and+artificial+noise+design+in+interference+networks+with+wireless+information+and+power+transfer&rft.au=Ren%2C+Yuan%3BGao%2C+Hui%3BLv%2C+Tiejun&rft.aulast=Ren&rft.aufirst=Yuan&rft.date=2017-05-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=622&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Peer-To-Peer+Networking+and+Applications&rft.issn=19366442&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs12083-016-0509-5 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 71 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131001; 14446-4_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130994; 14446-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130980; 14446-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Cancer+Letters&rft.issn=03043835&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.canlet.2016.12.035 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130964; 14446-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130916; 14446-4_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130604; 14446-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130568; 14446-4_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130551; 14446-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130541; 14446-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130520; 14446-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130504; 14446-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130488; 14446-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129768; 14446-4_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129741; 14446-4_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129705; 14446-4_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129663; 14446-4_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129627; 14446-4_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129597; 14446-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 68 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129596; 14446-4_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 70 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129582; 14446-4_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 67 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129565; 14446-4_0067 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129561; 14446-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129544; 14446-4_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129544?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2017-04-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=271&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Automotive+Technology&rft.issn=12299138&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs12239-017-0027-3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 66 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129537; 14446-4_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129525; 14446-4_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129513; 14446-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129478; 14446-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129474; 14446-4_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129428; 14446-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129390; 14446-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129351; 14446-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128969; 14446-4_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128958; 14446-4_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128950; 14446-4_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128943; 14446-4_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128940; 14446-4_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 69 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128937; 14446-4_0069 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128929; 14446-4_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128920; 14446-4_0057 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128915; 14446-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128913; 14446-4_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128896; 14446-4_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128891; 14446-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 55 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128875; 14446-4_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 63 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128868; 14446-4_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128867; 14446-4_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 62 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128852; 14446-4_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128846; 14446-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 60 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128827; 14446-4_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 65 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128817; 14446-4_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 59 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128808; 14446-4_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128803; 14446-4_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128781; 14446-4_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 61 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128780; 14446-4_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754909719; 14446 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO DEL ORO SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754907285; 14444 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a mixed-use development within the 3,828-acre Rio del Oro Specific Plan area in the city of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The project site is located in eastern Sacramento County, south of US 50, and is bounded on the north by White Rock Road, on the south by Douglas Road, and on the east by Sunrise Boulevard. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative are considered in this final EIS which incorporates the draft EIS of 2006 and the supplemental draft EIS of 2008. The Rio del Oro project has gone through several revisions in response to studies and best practices and the proposal has been modified to process the project in two separate phases or "tiers" of development approvals. The Tier One development agreements will vest the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and commit the city to consider future approval of the land uses and other details in the specific plan. The proposed project design would provide for the construction of 11,601 residential units in three residential land use classification areas on 1,920 acres. Commercial land use would include village commercial, local town center, and regional town center areas, together providing 153 acres of shopping centers. The plan would include an 86-acre business park and a 282-acre industrial park. Other land uses would include 63 acres of neighborhood recreational parks, 54 acres of private recreational facilities, 9.5 acres of public/quasi-public use areas, 44 acres of landscaped corridor, and 50 acres of greenbelt. Two elderberry preserve areas, totaling 24 acres, would be designated. In addition to 155 acres of drainage parkways, 39 acres of stormwater detention basins would be created in three separate locations. A 507-acre wetland preserve area would be situated in the southern portion of the project site. Designated school uses include allotments of 78 acres for a middle school/high school facility, with an adjacent 87-acre community park, a separate 20-acre middle school site, and 54 acres for six elementary schools. Approximately 227 acres would be allowed for roadways and the associated landscaping, along with a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails. Water supply, sewer, electrical, natural gas conveyance, and telecommunications infrastructure would be provided. Under the High Density Alternative, density would be increased such that 3,800 additional residential units would be constructed. Under the Impact Minimization Alternative, the level of residential development would be decreased by 470 acres and 1,040 residential units. The No Federal Action Alternative was designed to allow some development while avoiding the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Development under this alternative would incorporate a 50-foot wide avoidance buffer around jurisdictional wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development would provide housing and employment in a rapidly growing area of southern California. Orderly development of the site would prevent urban sprawl and blight. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The community would conflict with California Department of Education minimum size criteria for schools. Construction would damage or destroy historically significant buildings and other structures. An undeveloped, rural area would be converted to a densely developed multiple-use tract, destroying vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, damaging streams and wetlands, and degrading visual aesthetics. The development would result in highly significant increases in traffic, locally and regionally. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0276D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 07-0053D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100252, Volume I--453 pages, Volume II--637 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Industrial Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/754907285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIO+DEL+ORO+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 29 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873132244; 14443-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 14 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873132234; 14443-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 13 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873132225; 14443-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=1992-04-01&rft.volume=92&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=488&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+American+Dietetic+Association&rft.issn=00028223&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 67 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131432; 14443-1_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 66 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131411; 14443-1_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 51 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131361; 14443-1_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 50 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131347; 14443-1_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 45 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131335; 14443-1_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 44 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131328; 14443-1_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131328?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 24 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131301; 14443-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131301?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 68 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131233; 14443-1_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 56 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131216; 14443-1_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 60 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131212; 14443-1_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 55 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131206; 14443-1_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 54 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131199; 14443-1_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 59 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131197; 14443-1_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 53 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131184; 14443-1_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 58 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131181; 14443-1_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 42 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131171; 14443-1_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 57 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131164; 14443-1_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 26 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131162; 14443-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 25 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131154; 14443-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 38 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131105; 14443-1_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 37 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131087; 14443-1_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 36 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131070; 14443-1_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 17 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131051; 14443-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 5 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131027; 14443-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 4 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873131010; 14443-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 41 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873130992; 14443-1_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 2 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873130985; 14443-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 40 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873130981; 14443-1_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 39 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873130968; 14443-1_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 27 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873130951; 14443-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 19 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873130939; 14443-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 18 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873130929; 14443-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 11 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873130898; 14443-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 1 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873130796; 14443-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 49 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873129307; 14443-1_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 47 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873129232; 14443-1_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 23 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873129198; 14443-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 63 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873128981; 14443-1_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 61 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873128931; 14443-1_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 10 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873128339; 14443-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 9 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873128331; 14443-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 7 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873128317; 14443-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 6 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873128308; 14443-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 43 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873127257; 14443-1_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 35 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873127251; 14443-1_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 34 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873127249; 14443-1_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 33 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873127243; 14443-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 20 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873127232; 14443-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 16 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873127228; 14443-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 15 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873127224; 14443-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 46 of 68] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 873126937; 14443-1_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526993; 14441-100249_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Interstate 5 (I-5) from La Jolla Village Drive in the City of San Diego to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Oceanside, California are proposed. Located in San Diego Countys north coastal area, the I-5 North Coast Corridors 27 miles of highway connects the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. As a gateway to San Diego County, the I-5 North Coast Corridor is one of the most traveled highways in the nation. It carries locals and visitors to attractions such as its six lagoons, world-renowned beaches, Legoland and Del Mar Fairgrounds, employment centers, and communities. For most of the project area, there have been minimal improvements to the existing interstate facility since the original construction during the 1960's and 1970's and the corridor currently experiences periodic traffic congestion during weekday peak hours. The proposed improvements would include one or two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) managed lanes in each direction, auxiliary lanes where needed, and possibly one general purpose lane in each direction. The HOV/managed lanes would be available for carpools, vanpools, busses at no cost and be available to single-occupant vehicles for a fee when there is sufficient capacity. Four build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are assessed in this draft EIS. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a concrete barrier using standard 10-foot shoulder widths. There would be would a buffer separating HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a four-foot and variable buffer width in lieu of the barrier from Voigt Drive to Del Mar Heights Road and from SR-78 to Harbor Drive /Vandegrift Boulevard. A total of four HOV/managed lanes would be built from north of the freeway-to-freeway connector in San Diego to Harbor Drive/Vandegrift in Oceanside. There would be two HOV/managed lanes from Voigt Drive in San Diego to the freeway-to-freeway connector. New freeway access at Voigt Drive, Manchester Avenue, Cannon Road and Oceanside Boulevard would be constructed. In addition, one general-purpose lane would be constructed in each direction on I-5 from south of Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego to SR-78 in Oceanside. There would be auxiliary lanes constructed at various locations within the project area and operational improvements. The 10+4 with Buffer Alternative would function similarly, but would use a buffer to separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a width of four feet in some locations instead of the barrier. The 8+4 with Barrier and the 8+4 with Buffer alternatives would be similar, but would not include the additional general-purpose lanes. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $3.3 billion to $4.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service, provide a facility that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other modal options, provide consistency with the regional transportation plan, and maintain I-5 as an effective link in the national strategic highway network. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would impact 24 to 27 acres of farmland and 23 to 29 acres of federal wetlands, impact two archaeological sites, and require relocations of 50 to 112 residences and 10 to 13 businesses. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would displace a 47-unit apartment complex in northern Carlsbad within an area identified as having a high concentration of Spanish-speaking households as well as a high proportion of minority populations. All four build alternatives would result in highly adverse changes to the existing visual environment along the project corridor, making it noticeably more urban. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100249, 585 oversize pages and maps, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526988; 14441-100249_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Interstate 5 (I-5) from La Jolla Village Drive in the City of San Diego to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Oceanside, California are proposed. Located in San Diego Countys north coastal area, the I-5 North Coast Corridors 27 miles of highway connects the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. As a gateway to San Diego County, the I-5 North Coast Corridor is one of the most traveled highways in the nation. It carries locals and visitors to attractions such as its six lagoons, world-renowned beaches, Legoland and Del Mar Fairgrounds, employment centers, and communities. For most of the project area, there have been minimal improvements to the existing interstate facility since the original construction during the 1960's and 1970's and the corridor currently experiences periodic traffic congestion during weekday peak hours. The proposed improvements would include one or two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) managed lanes in each direction, auxiliary lanes where needed, and possibly one general purpose lane in each direction. The HOV/managed lanes would be available for carpools, vanpools, busses at no cost and be available to single-occupant vehicles for a fee when there is sufficient capacity. Four build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are assessed in this draft EIS. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a concrete barrier using standard 10-foot shoulder widths. There would be would a buffer separating HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a four-foot and variable buffer width in lieu of the barrier from Voigt Drive to Del Mar Heights Road and from SR-78 to Harbor Drive /Vandegrift Boulevard. A total of four HOV/managed lanes would be built from north of the freeway-to-freeway connector in San Diego to Harbor Drive/Vandegrift in Oceanside. There would be two HOV/managed lanes from Voigt Drive in San Diego to the freeway-to-freeway connector. New freeway access at Voigt Drive, Manchester Avenue, Cannon Road and Oceanside Boulevard would be constructed. In addition, one general-purpose lane would be constructed in each direction on I-5 from south of Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego to SR-78 in Oceanside. There would be auxiliary lanes constructed at various locations within the project area and operational improvements. The 10+4 with Buffer Alternative would function similarly, but would use a buffer to separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a width of four feet in some locations instead of the barrier. The 8+4 with Barrier and the 8+4 with Buffer alternatives would be similar, but would not include the additional general-purpose lanes. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $3.3 billion to $4.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service, provide a facility that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other modal options, provide consistency with the regional transportation plan, and maintain I-5 as an effective link in the national strategic highway network. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would impact 24 to 27 acres of farmland and 23 to 29 acres of federal wetlands, impact two archaeological sites, and require relocations of 50 to 112 residences and 10 to 13 businesses. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would displace a 47-unit apartment complex in northern Carlsbad within an area identified as having a high concentration of Spanish-speaking households as well as a high proportion of minority populations. All four build alternatives would result in highly adverse changes to the existing visual environment along the project corridor, making it noticeably more urban. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100249, 585 oversize pages and maps, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526967; 14441-100249_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Interstate 5 (I-5) from La Jolla Village Drive in the City of San Diego to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Oceanside, California are proposed. Located in San Diego Countys north coastal area, the I-5 North Coast Corridors 27 miles of highway connects the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. As a gateway to San Diego County, the I-5 North Coast Corridor is one of the most traveled highways in the nation. It carries locals and visitors to attractions such as its six lagoons, world-renowned beaches, Legoland and Del Mar Fairgrounds, employment centers, and communities. For most of the project area, there have been minimal improvements to the existing interstate facility since the original construction during the 1960's and 1970's and the corridor currently experiences periodic traffic congestion during weekday peak hours. The proposed improvements would include one or two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) managed lanes in each direction, auxiliary lanes where needed, and possibly one general purpose lane in each direction. The HOV/managed lanes would be available for carpools, vanpools, busses at no cost and be available to single-occupant vehicles for a fee when there is sufficient capacity. Four build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are assessed in this draft EIS. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a concrete barrier using standard 10-foot shoulder widths. There would be would a buffer separating HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a four-foot and variable buffer width in lieu of the barrier from Voigt Drive to Del Mar Heights Road and from SR-78 to Harbor Drive /Vandegrift Boulevard. A total of four HOV/managed lanes would be built from north of the freeway-to-freeway connector in San Diego to Harbor Drive/Vandegrift in Oceanside. There would be two HOV/managed lanes from Voigt Drive in San Diego to the freeway-to-freeway connector. New freeway access at Voigt Drive, Manchester Avenue, Cannon Road and Oceanside Boulevard would be constructed. In addition, one general-purpose lane would be constructed in each direction on I-5 from south of Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego to SR-78 in Oceanside. There would be auxiliary lanes constructed at various locations within the project area and operational improvements. The 10+4 with Buffer Alternative would function similarly, but would use a buffer to separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a width of four feet in some locations instead of the barrier. The 8+4 with Barrier and the 8+4 with Buffer alternatives would be similar, but would not include the additional general-purpose lanes. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $3.3 billion to $4.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service, provide a facility that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other modal options, provide consistency with the regional transportation plan, and maintain I-5 as an effective link in the national strategic highway network. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would impact 24 to 27 acres of farmland and 23 to 29 acres of federal wetlands, impact two archaeological sites, and require relocations of 50 to 112 residences and 10 to 13 businesses. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would displace a 47-unit apartment complex in northern Carlsbad within an area identified as having a high concentration of Spanish-speaking households as well as a high proportion of minority populations. All four build alternatives would result in highly adverse changes to the existing visual environment along the project corridor, making it noticeably more urban. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100249, 585 oversize pages and maps, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526961; 14441-100249_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Interstate 5 (I-5) from La Jolla Village Drive in the City of San Diego to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Oceanside, California are proposed. Located in San Diego Countys north coastal area, the I-5 North Coast Corridors 27 miles of highway connects the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. As a gateway to San Diego County, the I-5 North Coast Corridor is one of the most traveled highways in the nation. It carries locals and visitors to attractions such as its six lagoons, world-renowned beaches, Legoland and Del Mar Fairgrounds, employment centers, and communities. For most of the project area, there have been minimal improvements to the existing interstate facility since the original construction during the 1960's and 1970's and the corridor currently experiences periodic traffic congestion during weekday peak hours. The proposed improvements would include one or two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) managed lanes in each direction, auxiliary lanes where needed, and possibly one general purpose lane in each direction. The HOV/managed lanes would be available for carpools, vanpools, busses at no cost and be available to single-occupant vehicles for a fee when there is sufficient capacity. Four build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are assessed in this draft EIS. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a concrete barrier using standard 10-foot shoulder widths. There would be would a buffer separating HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a four-foot and variable buffer width in lieu of the barrier from Voigt Drive to Del Mar Heights Road and from SR-78 to Harbor Drive /Vandegrift Boulevard. A total of four HOV/managed lanes would be built from north of the freeway-to-freeway connector in San Diego to Harbor Drive/Vandegrift in Oceanside. There would be two HOV/managed lanes from Voigt Drive in San Diego to the freeway-to-freeway connector. New freeway access at Voigt Drive, Manchester Avenue, Cannon Road and Oceanside Boulevard would be constructed. In addition, one general-purpose lane would be constructed in each direction on I-5 from south of Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego to SR-78 in Oceanside. There would be auxiliary lanes constructed at various locations within the project area and operational improvements. The 10+4 with Buffer Alternative would function similarly, but would use a buffer to separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a width of four feet in some locations instead of the barrier. The 8+4 with Barrier and the 8+4 with Buffer alternatives would be similar, but would not include the additional general-purpose lanes. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $3.3 billion to $4.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service, provide a facility that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other modal options, provide consistency with the regional transportation plan, and maintain I-5 as an effective link in the national strategic highway network. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would impact 24 to 27 acres of farmland and 23 to 29 acres of federal wetlands, impact two archaeological sites, and require relocations of 50 to 112 residences and 10 to 13 businesses. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would displace a 47-unit apartment complex in northern Carlsbad within an area identified as having a high concentration of Spanish-speaking households as well as a high proportion of minority populations. All four build alternatives would result in highly adverse changes to the existing visual environment along the project corridor, making it noticeably more urban. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100249, 585 oversize pages and maps, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526954; 14441-100249_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Interstate 5 (I-5) from La Jolla Village Drive in the City of San Diego to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Oceanside, California are proposed. Located in San Diego Countys north coastal area, the I-5 North Coast Corridors 27 miles of highway connects the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. As a gateway to San Diego County, the I-5 North Coast Corridor is one of the most traveled highways in the nation. It carries locals and visitors to attractions such as its six lagoons, world-renowned beaches, Legoland and Del Mar Fairgrounds, employment centers, and communities. For most of the project area, there have been minimal improvements to the existing interstate facility since the original construction during the 1960's and 1970's and the corridor currently experiences periodic traffic congestion during weekday peak hours. The proposed improvements would include one or two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) managed lanes in each direction, auxiliary lanes where needed, and possibly one general purpose lane in each direction. The HOV/managed lanes would be available for carpools, vanpools, busses at no cost and be available to single-occupant vehicles for a fee when there is sufficient capacity. Four build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are assessed in this draft EIS. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a concrete barrier using standard 10-foot shoulder widths. There would be would a buffer separating HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a four-foot and variable buffer width in lieu of the barrier from Voigt Drive to Del Mar Heights Road and from SR-78 to Harbor Drive /Vandegrift Boulevard. A total of four HOV/managed lanes would be built from north of the freeway-to-freeway connector in San Diego to Harbor Drive/Vandegrift in Oceanside. There would be two HOV/managed lanes from Voigt Drive in San Diego to the freeway-to-freeway connector. New freeway access at Voigt Drive, Manchester Avenue, Cannon Road and Oceanside Boulevard would be constructed. In addition, one general-purpose lane would be constructed in each direction on I-5 from south of Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego to SR-78 in Oceanside. There would be auxiliary lanes constructed at various locations within the project area and operational improvements. The 10+4 with Buffer Alternative would function similarly, but would use a buffer to separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a width of four feet in some locations instead of the barrier. The 8+4 with Barrier and the 8+4 with Buffer alternatives would be similar, but would not include the additional general-purpose lanes. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $3.3 billion to $4.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service, provide a facility that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other modal options, provide consistency with the regional transportation plan, and maintain I-5 as an effective link in the national strategic highway network. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would impact 24 to 27 acres of farmland and 23 to 29 acres of federal wetlands, impact two archaeological sites, and require relocations of 50 to 112 residences and 10 to 13 businesses. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would displace a 47-unit apartment complex in northern Carlsbad within an area identified as having a high concentration of Spanish-speaking households as well as a high proportion of minority populations. All four build alternatives would result in highly adverse changes to the existing visual environment along the project corridor, making it noticeably more urban. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100249, 585 oversize pages and maps, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526893; 14441-100249_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Interstate 5 (I-5) from La Jolla Village Drive in the City of San Diego to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Oceanside, California are proposed. Located in San Diego Countys north coastal area, the I-5 North Coast Corridors 27 miles of highway connects the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. As a gateway to San Diego County, the I-5 North Coast Corridor is one of the most traveled highways in the nation. It carries locals and visitors to attractions such as its six lagoons, world-renowned beaches, Legoland and Del Mar Fairgrounds, employment centers, and communities. For most of the project area, there have been minimal improvements to the existing interstate facility since the original construction during the 1960's and 1970's and the corridor currently experiences periodic traffic congestion during weekday peak hours. The proposed improvements would include one or two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) managed lanes in each direction, auxiliary lanes where needed, and possibly one general purpose lane in each direction. The HOV/managed lanes would be available for carpools, vanpools, busses at no cost and be available to single-occupant vehicles for a fee when there is sufficient capacity. Four build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are assessed in this draft EIS. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a concrete barrier using standard 10-foot shoulder widths. There would be would a buffer separating HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a four-foot and variable buffer width in lieu of the barrier from Voigt Drive to Del Mar Heights Road and from SR-78 to Harbor Drive /Vandegrift Boulevard. A total of four HOV/managed lanes would be built from north of the freeway-to-freeway connector in San Diego to Harbor Drive/Vandegrift in Oceanside. There would be two HOV/managed lanes from Voigt Drive in San Diego to the freeway-to-freeway connector. New freeway access at Voigt Drive, Manchester Avenue, Cannon Road and Oceanside Boulevard would be constructed. In addition, one general-purpose lane would be constructed in each direction on I-5 from south of Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego to SR-78 in Oceanside. There would be auxiliary lanes constructed at various locations within the project area and operational improvements. The 10+4 with Buffer Alternative would function similarly, but would use a buffer to separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a width of four feet in some locations instead of the barrier. The 8+4 with Barrier and the 8+4 with Buffer alternatives would be similar, but would not include the additional general-purpose lanes. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $3.3 billion to $4.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service, provide a facility that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other modal options, provide consistency with the regional transportation plan, and maintain I-5 as an effective link in the national strategic highway network. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would impact 24 to 27 acres of farmland and 23 to 29 acres of federal wetlands, impact two archaeological sites, and require relocations of 50 to 112 residences and 10 to 13 businesses. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would displace a 47-unit apartment complex in northern Carlsbad within an area identified as having a high concentration of Spanish-speaking households as well as a high proportion of minority populations. All four build alternatives would result in highly adverse changes to the existing visual environment along the project corridor, making it noticeably more urban. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100249, 585 oversize pages and maps, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=1992-03-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=269&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Archives+of+Disease+in+Childhood&rft.issn=14682044&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526887; 14441-100249_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Interstate 5 (I-5) from La Jolla Village Drive in the City of San Diego to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Oceanside, California are proposed. Located in San Diego Countys north coastal area, the I-5 North Coast Corridors 27 miles of highway connects the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. As a gateway to San Diego County, the I-5 North Coast Corridor is one of the most traveled highways in the nation. It carries locals and visitors to attractions such as its six lagoons, world-renowned beaches, Legoland and Del Mar Fairgrounds, employment centers, and communities. For most of the project area, there have been minimal improvements to the existing interstate facility since the original construction during the 1960's and 1970's and the corridor currently experiences periodic traffic congestion during weekday peak hours. The proposed improvements would include one or two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) managed lanes in each direction, auxiliary lanes where needed, and possibly one general purpose lane in each direction. The HOV/managed lanes would be available for carpools, vanpools, busses at no cost and be available to single-occupant vehicles for a fee when there is sufficient capacity. Four build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are assessed in this draft EIS. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a concrete barrier using standard 10-foot shoulder widths. There would be would a buffer separating HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a four-foot and variable buffer width in lieu of the barrier from Voigt Drive to Del Mar Heights Road and from SR-78 to Harbor Drive /Vandegrift Boulevard. A total of four HOV/managed lanes would be built from north of the freeway-to-freeway connector in San Diego to Harbor Drive/Vandegrift in Oceanside. There would be two HOV/managed lanes from Voigt Drive in San Diego to the freeway-to-freeway connector. New freeway access at Voigt Drive, Manchester Avenue, Cannon Road and Oceanside Boulevard would be constructed. In addition, one general-purpose lane would be constructed in each direction on I-5 from south of Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego to SR-78 in Oceanside. There would be auxiliary lanes constructed at various locations within the project area and operational improvements. The 10+4 with Buffer Alternative would function similarly, but would use a buffer to separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a width of four feet in some locations instead of the barrier. The 8+4 with Barrier and the 8+4 with Buffer alternatives would be similar, but would not include the additional general-purpose lanes. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $3.3 billion to $4.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service, provide a facility that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other modal options, provide consistency with the regional transportation plan, and maintain I-5 as an effective link in the national strategic highway network. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would impact 24 to 27 acres of farmland and 23 to 29 acres of federal wetlands, impact two archaeological sites, and require relocations of 50 to 112 residences and 10 to 13 businesses. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would displace a 47-unit apartment complex in northern Carlsbad within an area identified as having a high concentration of Spanish-speaking households as well as a high proportion of minority populations. All four build alternatives would result in highly adverse changes to the existing visual environment along the project corridor, making it noticeably more urban. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100249, 585 oversize pages and maps, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754909715; 14441 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Interstate 5 (I-5) from La Jolla Village Drive in the City of San Diego to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Oceanside, California are proposed. Located in San Diego Countys north coastal area, the I-5 North Coast Corridors 27 miles of highway connects the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. As a gateway to San Diego County, the I-5 North Coast Corridor is one of the most traveled highways in the nation. It carries locals and visitors to attractions such as its six lagoons, world-renowned beaches, Legoland and Del Mar Fairgrounds, employment centers, and communities. For most of the project area, there have been minimal improvements to the existing interstate facility since the original construction during the 1960's and 1970's and the corridor currently experiences periodic traffic congestion during weekday peak hours. The proposed improvements would include one or two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) managed lanes in each direction, auxiliary lanes where needed, and possibly one general purpose lane in each direction. The HOV/managed lanes would be available for carpools, vanpools, busses at no cost and be available to single-occupant vehicles for a fee when there is sufficient capacity. Four build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are assessed in this draft EIS. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a concrete barrier using standard 10-foot shoulder widths. There would be would a buffer separating HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a four-foot and variable buffer width in lieu of the barrier from Voigt Drive to Del Mar Heights Road and from SR-78 to Harbor Drive /Vandegrift Boulevard. A total of four HOV/managed lanes would be built from north of the freeway-to-freeway connector in San Diego to Harbor Drive/Vandegrift in Oceanside. There would be two HOV/managed lanes from Voigt Drive in San Diego to the freeway-to-freeway connector. New freeway access at Voigt Drive, Manchester Avenue, Cannon Road and Oceanside Boulevard would be constructed. In addition, one general-purpose lane would be constructed in each direction on I-5 from south of Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego to SR-78 in Oceanside. There would be auxiliary lanes constructed at various locations within the project area and operational improvements. The 10+4 with Buffer Alternative would function similarly, but would use a buffer to separate HOV/managed lanes from general-purpose lanes with a width of four feet in some locations instead of the barrier. The 8+4 with Barrier and the 8+4 with Buffer alternatives would be similar, but would not include the additional general-purpose lanes. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $3.3 billion to $4.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service, provide a facility that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other modal options, provide consistency with the regional transportation plan, and maintain I-5 as an effective link in the national strategic highway network. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would impact 24 to 27 acres of farmland and 23 to 29 acres of federal wetlands, impact two archaeological sites, and require relocations of 50 to 112 residences and 10 to 13 businesses. The 10+4 with Barrier Alternative would displace a 47-unit apartment complex in northern Carlsbad within an area identified as having a high concentration of Spanish-speaking households as well as a high proportion of minority populations. All four build alternatives would result in highly adverse changes to the existing visual environment along the project corridor, making it noticeably more urban. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100249, 585 oversize pages and maps, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5+NORTH+COAST+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). AN - 754908486; 14443 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The role of seedlings and seed bank viability in the recovery of Chesapeake Bay, USA, Zostera marina populations following a large-scale decline AN - 860392011; 14393612 AB - The objective of this study was to quantify the spatial and temporal recolonization characteristics of Zostera marina beds in the lower Chesapeake Bay following large scale declines in the late summer of 2005. Transects were established and monitored monthly for changes in eelgrass abundance at three sites (two downriver, one upriver) in the York River from April-October 2006 and 2007. Measurements included percent bottom cover, above ground biomass, shoot density, shoot origin (seedling or vegetative), seed bank abundance and seed viability. During 2006, the eelgrass beds at all sites recovered with seedlings providing the largest proportion of the total shoot abundance. This trend shifted in 2007 and surviving vegetative shoots were the dominant component of shoot standing crop. A second consecutive decline related to low light conditions occurred during the summer of 2006 in the upriver site and recovery there was minimal in 2007. These results highlight that after a single die off event, seed germination with subsequent seedling growth is the principal method for revegetation in lower Chesapeake Bay Z. marina beds. However, no viable seeds remain in the seed bank during this first year of recovery and shoots produced by the seedling growth do not flower and produce seeds until their second year of growth. Therefore the seed-bank density is low and is not immediately replenished. This suggests that the resiliency of perennial Chesapeake Bay Z. marina populations to repeated disturbances is restricted and repeated annual stress may result in much longer term bed loss. JF - Hydrobiologia AU - Jarvis, Jessie C AU - Moore, Kenneth A AD - Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, P.O. Box 1346, Gloucester Point, VA, 23062, USA, jessiecjarvis@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/07// PY - 2010 DA - Jul 2010 SP - 55 EP - 68 PB - Springer-Verlag, Tiergartenstrasse 17 Heidelberg 69121 Germany VL - 649 IS - 1 SN - 0018-8158, 0018-8158 KW - Ecology Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Revegetation KW - Abundance KW - Population density KW - recolonization KW - Growth KW - Seed germination KW - shoots KW - flowers KW - Rivers KW - Germination KW - Environmental monitoring KW - Marine KW - revegetation KW - Flowers KW - Seeds KW - seed germination KW - Recolonization KW - Environmental impact KW - Stress KW - USA, Virginia, York R. KW - Biomass KW - ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay KW - Light effects KW - seed banks KW - Shoots KW - Dominant species KW - USA KW - Seed banks KW - summer KW - Seedlings KW - Sea grass KW - Zostera marina KW - Standing crop KW - abundance KW - Q2 09387:Navigation KW - Q1 08424:Age and growth 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/860392011?accountid=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=Hydrobiologia&rft.atitle=The+role+of+seedlings+and+seed+bank+viability+in+the+recovery+of+Chesapeake+Bay%2C+USA%2C+Zostera+marina+populations+following+a+large-scale+decline&rft.au=Jarvis%2C+Jessie+C%3BMoore%2C+Kenneth+A&rft.aulast=Jarvis&rft.aufirst=Jessie&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=649&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=55&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Hydrobiologia&rft.issn=00188158&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10750-010-0258-z LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Environmental monitoring; Germination; Dominant species; Growth; Seeds; Environmental impact; Population density; Sea grass; Seedlings; Rivers; Flowers; Revegetation; Abundance; Recolonization; Stress; Biomass; Light effects; Shoots; Seed banks; Seed germination; Standing crop; seed banks; revegetation; seed germination; shoots; summer; flowers; recolonization; abundance; Zostera marina; USA; USA, Virginia, York R.; ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0258-z ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Lead distributions and risks in New Orleans following hurricanes Katrina and Rita AN - 762675766; 2010-090493 AB - During the last four years, significant effort has been devoted to understanding the effects that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on contaminant distribution and redistribution in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, and the surrounding Gulf Coast area. Elevated concentrations were found for inorganic contaminants (including As, Fe, Pb, and V), several organic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, and volatiles) and high concentration of bioaerosols, particularly Aeromonas and Vibrio. Data from different research groups confirm that some contaminant concentrations are elevated, that existing concentrations are similar to historical data, and that contaminants such as Pb and As may pose human health risks. Two data sets have been compiled in this article to serve as the foundation for preliminary risk assessments within greater New Orleans. Research from the present study suggests that children in highly contaminated areas of New Orleans may experience Pb exposure from soil ranging from 1.37 mu g/d to 102 mu g/d. These data are critical in the evaluation of children's health. JF - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry AU - Abel, Michael T AU - Cobb, George P AU - Presley, Steven M AU - Ray, Gary L AU - Rainwater, Thomas R AU - Austin, Galen P AU - Cox, Stephen B AU - Anderson, Todd A AU - Leftwich, Blair D AU - Kendall, Ronald J AU - Suedel, Burton C Y1 - 2010/07// PY - 2010 DA - July 2010 SP - 1429 EP - 1437 PB - Wiley InterScience on behalf of SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), Pensacola, FL VL - 29 IS - 7 SN - 0730-7268, 0730-7268 KW - United States KW - New Orleans Louisiana KW - geologic hazards KW - lead KW - bioavailability KW - environmental analysis KW - urban environment KW - Hurricane Rita KW - sampling KW - floods KW - storms KW - Louisiana KW - soils KW - Hurricane Katrina KW - concentration KW - monitoring KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - Gulf Coastal Plain KW - cyclones KW - safety KW - Orleans Parish Louisiana KW - detection KW - metals KW - risk assessment KW - hurricanes KW - public health KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/762675766?accountid=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=Lead+distributions+and+risks+in+New+Orleans+following+hurricanes+Katrina+and+Rita&rft.au=Abel%2C+Michael+T%3BCobb%2C+George+P%3BPresley%2C+Steven+M%3BRay%2C+Gary+L%3BRainwater%2C+Thomas+R%3BAustin%2C+Galen+P%3BCox%2C+Stephen+B%3BAnderson%2C+Todd+A%3BLeftwich%2C+Blair+D%3BKendall%2C+Ronald+J%3BSuedel%2C+Burton+C&rft.aulast=Abel&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1429&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.issn=07307268&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fetc.205 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 - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 48 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bioavailability; concentration; cyclones; detection; environmental analysis; floods; geologic hazards; Gulf Coastal Plain; Hurricane Katrina; Hurricane Rita; hurricanes; lead; Louisiana; metals; monitoring; New Orleans Louisiana; Orleans Parish Louisiana; pollutants; pollution; public health; risk assessment; safety; sampling; soils; storms; United States; urban environment DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.205 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An Introduction to a Special Issue on Large-Scale Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration Research in the Chesapeake Bay: 2003-2008 AN - 754559288; 13365272 AB - The Chesapeake Bay is one of the world's largest estuaries. Dramatic declines in the abundance and distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the Chesapeake Bay over the last few decades led to a series of management decisions aimed at protecting and restoring SAV populations throughout the bay. In 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Program established a goal of planting 405 ha of SAV by 2008. Realizing that such an ambitious goal would require the development of large-scale approaches to SAV restoration, a comprehensive research effort was organized, involving federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector. This effort differs from most other SAV restoration programs due to a strong emphasis on the use of seeds rather than plants as planting stock, a decision based on the relatively low labor requirements of seeding. Much of the research has focused on the development of tools and techniques for using seeds in large-scale SAV restoration. Since this research initiative began, an average of 13.4 ha/year of SAV has been planted in the Chesapeake Bay, compared to an average rate of 3.6 ha/year during the previous 21 years (1983-2003). The costs of conducting these plantings are on a downward trend as the understanding of the limiting factors increases and as new advances are made in applied research and technology development. Although this effort was focused in the Chesapeake Bay region, the tools and techniques developed as part of this research should be widely applicable to SAV restoration efforts in other areas. JF - Restoration Ecology AU - Shafer, Deborah AU - Bergstrom, Peter AD - 1 Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, U.S.A. 1, Deborah.J.Shafer@us.army.mil Y1 - 2010/07// PY - 2010 DA - Jul 2010 SP - 481 EP - 489 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 USA VL - 18 IS - 4 SN - 1061-2971, 1061-2971 KW - ASFA Aquaculture Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Submerged Plants KW - Abundance KW - Population dynamics KW - Restoration KW - Costs KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Planting KW - Seeding KW - Seeds KW - Quantitative distribution KW - Estuaries KW - Seeding (aquaculture) KW - Aquatic Populations KW - Aquatic plants KW - Vegetation KW - Limiting factors KW - ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay KW - Labor KW - Shore protection KW - Limiting Factors KW - Governments KW - SW 4070:Ecological impact of water development KW - Q3 08585:Plant culture KW - Q1 08585:Plant culture KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754559288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Restoration+Ecology&rft.atitle=An+Introduction+to+a+Special+Issue+on+Large-Scale+Submerged+Aquatic+Vegetation+Restoration+Research+in+the+Chesapeake+Bay%3A+2003-2008&rft.au=Shafer%2C+Deborah%3BBergstrom%2C+Peter&rft.aulast=Shafer&rft.aufirst=Deborah&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=481&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Restoration+Ecology&rft.issn=10612971&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1526-100X.2010.00689.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Seeds; Shore protection; Quantitative distribution; Seeding (aquaculture); Aquatic plants; Governments; Limiting factors; Population dynamics; Restoration; Planting; Abundance; Estuaries; Seeding; Vegetation; Costs; Aquatic Plants; Submerged Plants; Aquatic Populations; Limiting Factors; Labor; ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00689.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Toxicity of trinitrotoluene to sheepshead minnows in water exposures AN - 1777133730; 13070201 AB - Lethal effects of trinitrotoluene (TNT) to juvenile sheepshead minnows (JSHM) (Cyprinodon variegatus) were assessed in ten-day water exposures. Ten-day median lethal concentrations (LC50s) were 2.3 and 2.5mgL super(-1), the 10-d median lethal residue value (LR50) was 26.1 mu molkg super(-1) wet weight (ww), and bioconcentration factors (BCFs) ranged from 0.7 to 2.4Lkg super(-1). The lethal effects of TNT and its transformation products 2-aminodinitrotoluene (2-ADNT), 2,4-diaminonitrotoluene (2,4-DANT) and trinitrobenzene (TNB) to JSHM were compared in 5-d static-renewal exposures. Nitroreduction decreased the toxicity of TNT to SHM, as the 5-d LC50 for 2-ADNT was 8.6mgL super(-1) and the lowest lethal concentration of 2,4-DANT was 50.3mgL super(-1). TNB (5-d LC50=1.2mgL super(-1)) was more toxic than TNT to SHM. The 5-d LR50s were 4.3mgkg super(-1) ww (20.4 mu molkg super(-1)) for SumTNT (TNT exposure) and 54.2mgkg super(-1) ww (275.3 mu molkg super(-1)) for 2-ADNT and significant mortality occurred at 47.4mgkg super(-1) ww (283.6 mu molkg super(-1)). The range of BCF values was from 1.8 to 2.4, 5.6 to 8.0, and 0.6 to 0.9Lkg super(-1) for TNT, 2-ADNT, and 2,4-DANT, respectively. JF - Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety AU - Lotufo, Guilherme R AU - Blackburn, William M AU - Gibson, Alfreda B AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA guilherme.lotufo@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/07// PY - 2010 DA - July 2010 SP - 718 EP - 726 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 73 IS - 5 SN - 0147-6513, 0147-6513 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Explosives KW - TNT KW - Toxicity KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Critical body residue KW - Sheepshead minnow KW - Cyprinodon variegatus KW - Mortality KW - Residues KW - Transformations KW - Trinitrotoluene KW - Exposure KW - Safety KW - Toxicology KW - Freshwater UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777133730?accountid=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+of+trinitrotoluene+to+sheepshead+minnows+in+water+exposures&rft.au=Lotufo%2C+Guilherme+R%3BBlackburn%2C+William+M%3BGibson%2C+Alfreda+B&rft.aulast=Lotufo&rft.aufirst=Guilherme&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=718&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecotoxicology+and+Environmental+Safety&rft.issn=01476513&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecoenv.2010.02.007 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.02.007 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing the fate and effects of nano aluminum oxide in the terrestrial earthworm, Eisenia fetida AN - 1777124451; 14430235 AB - Nano-sized aluminum is currently being used by the military and commercial industries in many applications including coatings, thermites, and propellants. Due to the potential for wide dispersal in soil systems, we chose to investigate the fate and effects of nano-sized aluminum oxide (Al sub(2)O sub(3)), the oxidized form of nano aluminum, in a terrestrial organism. The toxicity and bioaccumulation potential of micron-sized (50-200 is a subset of m, nominal) and nano-sized (11 nm, nominal) Al sub(2)O sub(3) was comparatively assessed through acute and subchronic bioassays using the terrestrial earthworm, Eisenia fetida. Subchronic (28-d) studies were performed exposing E. fetida to nano- and micron-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3)-spiked soils to assess the effects of long-term exposure. No mortality occurred in subchronic exposures, although reproduction decreased at =>3,000 mg/kg nano-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3) treatments, with higher aluminum body burdens observed at 100 and 300 mg/kg; no reproductive effects were observed in the micron-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3) treatments. In addition to toxicity and bioaccumulation bioassays, an acute (48-h) behavioral bioassay was conducted utilizing a soil avoidance wheel in which E. fetida were given a choice of habitat between control, nano-, or micron-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3) amended soils. In the soil avoidance bioassays, E. fetida exhibited avoidance behavior toward the highest concentrations of micron- and nano-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3) (>5,000 mg/kg) relative to control soils. Results of the present study indicate that nano-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3) may impact reproduction and behavior of E. fetida, although at high levels unlikely to be found in the environment. JF - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry AU - Coleman, Jessica G AU - Johnson, David R AU - Stanley, Jacob K AU - Bednar, Anthony J AU - Weiss, Charles A AU - Boyd, Robert E AU - Steevens, Jeffery A AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180 jessica.g.coleman@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/07/01/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jul 01 SP - 1575 EP - 1580 PB - Allen Press, Inc., 810 East Tenth St. Lawrence KS 66044 USA VL - 29 IS - 7 SN - 1552-8618, 1552-8618 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE); Aluminium Industry Abstracts (AI) KW - Nano KW - Aluminum oxide KW - Soil KW - Eisenia fetida KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Nanomaterials KW - Soil (material) KW - Avoidance KW - Nanocomposites KW - Aluminum KW - Reproduction KW - Nanostructure KW - Bioassay UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777124451?accountid=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=Assessing+the+fate+and+effects+of+nano+aluminum+oxide+in+the+terrestrial+earthworm%2C+Eisenia+fetida&rft.au=Coleman%2C+Jessica+G%3BJohnson%2C+David+R%3BStanley%2C+Jacob+K%3BBednar%2C+Anthony+J%3BWeiss%2C+Charles+A%3BBoyd%2C+Robert+E%3BSteevens%2C+Jeffery+A&rft.aulast=Coleman&rft.aufirst=Jessica&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1575&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.issn=15528618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fetc.196 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.196 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - The geology of Haiti; an annotated bibliography of Haiti's geology, geography and earth science AN - 1033531077; 2012-072431 JF - The geology of Haiti; an annotated bibliography of Haiti's geology, geography and earth science AU - Hadden, Robert Lee AU - Minson, Steven G Y1 - 2010/07// PY - 2010 DA - July 2010 SP - 254 KW - Haiti KW - Antilles KW - Greater Antilles KW - Hispaniola KW - geography KW - West Indies KW - Caribbean region KW - areal geology KW - bibliography KW - 13:Areal geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1033531077?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=Hadden%2C+Robert+Lee%3BMinson%2C+Steven+G&rft.aulast=Hadden&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=The+geology+of+Haiti%3B+an+annotated+bibliography+of+Haiti%27s+geology%2C+geography+and+earth+science&rft.title=The+geology+of+Haiti%3B+an+annotated+bibliography+of+Haiti%27s+geology%2C+geography+and+earth+science&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Availability - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Geospatial Center, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Document feature - sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-08-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873132312; 14439-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 43 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131612; 14439-7_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 42 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131603; 14439-7_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 34 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131594; 14439-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 30 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131581; 14439-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 29 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131572; 14439-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131572?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 22 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131558; 14439-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131558?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 21 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131551; 14439-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 19 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131534; 14439-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 14 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131520; 14439-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 13 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131508; 14439-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 56 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131466; 14439-7_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 55 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131451; 14439-7_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 46 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131443; 14439-7_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 40 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131436; 14439-7_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 35 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131434; 14439-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 39 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131422; 14439-7_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 26 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131419; 14439-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 33 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131407; 14439-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 25 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131398; 14439-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131398?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 32 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131395; 14439-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 9 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131374; 14439-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 24 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131371; 14439-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 23 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131357; 14439-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131357?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 8 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131155; 14439-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 7 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131143; 14439-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131118; 14439-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 11 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131058; 14439-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 10 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131040; 14439-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 65 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129825; 14439-7_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 50 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129815; 14439-7_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 49 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129796; 14439-7_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 64 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129792; 14439-7_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 36 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129777; 14439-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 18 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129752; 14439-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129752?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 62 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129730; 14439-7_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 17 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129721; 14439-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 16 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129686; 14439-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129686?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 15 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129668; 14439-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 48 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129659; 14439-7_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 47 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129632; 14439-7_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 38 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129587; 14439-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 45 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129256; 14439-7_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 44 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129158; 14439-7_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 28 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129122; 14439-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 27 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129097; 14439-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 53 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127869; 14439-7_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 52 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127861; 14439-7_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 51 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127855; 14439-7_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127855?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127276; 14439-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127265; 14439-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 66] T2 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127262; 14439-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 754907241; 14439 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to dredge up to 4.6 million cubic yards of beach-quality sediment from an offshore borrow source and deposit the material along 10 miles of ocean shoreline in the town of Nags Head, Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The project site has sustained chronic erosion over the past 50 years due to storms and sand losses to Oregon Inlet. Erosion rates of up to 10 feet per year have forced abandonment of property and left numerous buildings with no dune protection. The federal government has recognized that portions of Dare County are severely eroded and a final EIS on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control issued in September 2000 found justification for a 14.2-mile nourishment project of which 10.1 miles are contained within the town limits of Nags Head. Construction of the federal project has been delayed, and given the severely eroded condition of Nags Head, the town is pursuing a locally sponsored beach nourishment project that would utilize a self-contained hopper dredge and other feasible dredging equipment from April through September to undertake dredging operations and discharge the sand on the beach via submerged pipeline. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing property valued at $130 million would be abandoned as erosion encroaches. The retreat and relocate alternative would involve moving threatened structures at an estimated cost of $594 million. The preferred alternative is beach nourishment to restore recreational areas lost to erosion and provide greater separation between existing properties and the ocean. A portion of an offshore borrow area delineated for use in the southern project area of the federal Dare County Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Project would be utilized. The anticipated equipment for excavations would include ocean-certified, self-contained hopper dredges which typically excavate shallow trenches (two to three foot sections) in each pass, then travel to a buoyed pipeline anchored close to shore. Discharge to the beach would be via submerged pipeline across the surf zone, then by way of shore-based pipe positioned along the dry beach. The project would be built in one to two mile sections, optimizing the disposition of pipeline. Sections would be pumped into place with the aid of temporary dikes pushed up by bulldozers in the surf zone. Daily operations would impact 500 to 1,000 linear feet of shoreline and as construction progresses, sections would be graded to final contours, dressed to eliminate low areas, and opened for use by the public. Support equipment would be shifted out of completed sections as soon as practicable, so that construction activities in a particular reach would disrupt normal beach use for only a month or so at any locality. The project would include the placement of dune fencing and/or dune plantings as needed. Total cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $35.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore a protective beach, replace sand lost during the delay in startup of the federal hurricane protection and beach erosion control project, and help preserve property values and the tax base of Dare County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Twelve miles of nesting beach habitat would be affected by the proposed action with uncertain effects on sea turtles. Suspension of sediments during dredging would be unavoidable. The longevity of the project would be uncertain due to littoral processes typical of the northern North Carolina coast. 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 09-0396D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the federal project for protection of Dare County beaches, see 00-0469D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0077F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100247, Final EIS and Appendices--CD-ROM, June 30, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Erosion Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BEACH+NOURISHMENT+PROJECT%2C+TOWN+OF+NAGS+HEAD%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - SPHAGNUM as a Hydrology Indicator for Wetland Delineations in the u.s. T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AN - 839714779; 5931684 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AU - Gillrich, J J AU - Lichvar, R W Y1 - 2010/06/27/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 27 KW - {Q1} KW - Hydrology KW - Wetlands KW - {Q2} KW - Sphagnum KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839714779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.atitle=SPHAGNUM+as+a+Hydrology+Indicator+for+Wetland+Delineations+in+the+u.s.&rft.au=Gillrich%2C+J+J%3BLichvar%2C+R+W&rft.aulast=Gillrich&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2010-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.birenheide.com/sws/2010/program/sessions.php3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - a Comparison of Six Different Methods for Computing Duration in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AN - 839714336; 5931714 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AU - Johnson, D R AU - Parrish, K D Y1 - 2010/06/27/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 27 KW - {Q1} KW - USA, Mississippi Alluvial Valley KW - Valleys KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839714336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.atitle=a+Comparison+of+Six+Different+Methods+for+Computing+Duration+in+the+Lower+Mississippi+Alluvial+Valley&rft.au=Johnson%2C+D+R%3BParrish%2C+K+D&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2010-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.birenheide.com/sws/2010/program/sessions.php3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Application of Hydrology Technical Standards T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AN - 839712590; 5931639 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AU - Noble, C Y1 - 2010/06/27/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 27 KW - {Q1} KW - Hydrology KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839712590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acomdisdome&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Developmental+Medicine+and+Child+Neurology&rft.atitle=Ventilation+and+swallowing+interactions+of+normal+children+and+children+with+cerebral+palsy.&rft.au=McPherson%2C+K+A%3BKenny%2C+D+J%3BKoheil%2C+R%3BBablich%2C+K%3BSochaniwskyj%2C+A%3BMilner%2C+M&rft.aulast=McPherson&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=1992-07-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=577&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Developmental+Medicine+and+Child+Neurology&rft.issn=00121622&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.birenheide.com/sws/2010/program/sessions.php3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Changes in the Extent of a Mississippi River Backwater Wetland over a 120 Year Period T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AN - 839703214; 5931709 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AU - Johnson, D R AU - Parrish, K D Y1 - 2010/06/27/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 27 KW - {Q1} KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Backwaters KW - Wetlands KW - Rivers KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839703214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.atitle=Changes+in+the+Extent+of+a+Mississippi+River+Backwater+Wetland+over+a+120+Year+Period&rft.au=Johnson%2C+D+R%3BParrish%2C+K+D&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2010-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.birenheide.com/sws/2010/program/sessions.php3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Guidebooks for Ecosystem Assessment T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AN - 839700847; 5931790 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AU - Noble, C AU - Berkowitz, J Y1 - 2010/06/27/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 27 KW - {Q1} KW - Ecosystem assessment KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839700847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.atitle=Hydrogeomorphic+%28HGM%29+Guidebooks+for+Ecosystem+Assessment&rft.au=Noble%2C+C%3BBerkowitz%2C+J&rft.aulast=Noble&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2010-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.birenheide.com/sws/2010/program/sessions.php3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Mathematical Characteristics of Hydrophytic Vegetation Formulas T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AN - 839700613; 5931685 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AU - Lichvar, R W AU - Gillrich, J J AU - Ochs, W R Y1 - 2010/06/27/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 27 KW - {Q1} KW - Vegetation KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839700613?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.atitle=Mathematical+Characteristics+of+Hydrophytic+Vegetation+Formulas&rft.au=Lichvar%2C+R+W%3BGillrich%2C+J+J%3BOchs%2C+W+R&rft.aulast=Lichvar&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2010-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.birenheide.com/sws/2010/program/sessions.php3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - National Survey of Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States - Usage and Problematic Determinations T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AN - 839700511; 5931642 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists AU - Berkowitz, J Y1 - 2010/06/27/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 27 KW - {Q1} KW - USA KW - Soil KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839700511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.atitle=National+Survey+of+Field+Indicators+of+Hydric+Soils+in+the+United+States+-+Usage+and+Problematic+Determinations&rft.au=Berkowitz%2C+J&rft.aulast=Berkowitz&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2010-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Wetland+Scientists&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.birenheide.com/sws/2010/program/sessions.php3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 10 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255175; 14435-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 9 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255173; 14435-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 8 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255170; 14435-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 7 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255167; 14435-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 6 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255165; 14435-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 18 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254357; 14435-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254357?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 17 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254354; 14435-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 16 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254352; 14435-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 23 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254210; 14435-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 22 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254208; 14435-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 21 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254206; 14435-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 20 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254203; 14435-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 19 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254199; 14435-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 3 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254195; 14435-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 2 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254191; 14435-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 1 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254184; 14435-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 24 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254174; 14435-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 15 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254171; 14435-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 14 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254167; 14435-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 13 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254166; 14435-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 12 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254164; 14435-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 11 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254160; 14435-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 5 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254159; 14435-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 4 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254157; 14435-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254157?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816530797; 14392-100241_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The 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, a master-planned area consisting of 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 permitted projects 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 of the projects, Arista del Sol. This draft EIS considers three alternatives: No Action (no permit needed), the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 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 15.9 acres and preservation of 25.6 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 an increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100241, Draft EIS--440 pages and maps, Appendices--831 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage 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/816530797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527026; 14392-100241_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The 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, a master-planned area consisting of 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 permitted projects 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 of the projects, Arista del Sol. This draft EIS considers three alternatives: No Action (no permit needed), the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 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 15.9 acres and preservation of 25.6 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 an increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100241, Draft EIS--440 pages and maps, Appendices--831 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage 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/816527026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526958; 14392-100241_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The 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, a master-planned area consisting of 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 permitted projects 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 of the projects, Arista del Sol. This draft EIS considers three alternatives: No Action (no permit needed), the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 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 15.9 acres and preservation of 25.6 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 an increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100241, Draft EIS--440 pages and maps, Appendices--831 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage 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/816526958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526953; 14392-100241_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The 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, a master-planned area consisting of 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 permitted projects 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 of the projects, Arista del Sol. This draft EIS considers three alternatives: No Action (no permit needed), the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 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 15.9 acres and preservation of 25.6 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 an increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100241, Draft EIS--440 pages and maps, Appendices--831 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage 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/816526953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526877; 14392-100241_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The 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, a master-planned area consisting of 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 permitted projects 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 of the projects, Arista del Sol. This draft EIS considers three alternatives: No Action (no permit needed), the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 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 15.9 acres and preservation of 25.6 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 an increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100241, Draft EIS--440 pages and maps, Appendices--831 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage 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/816526877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 754909710; 14435 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754908068; 14392 AB - PURPOSE: The 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, a master-planned area consisting of 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 permitted projects 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 of the projects, Arista del Sol. This draft EIS considers three alternatives: No Action (no permit needed), the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 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 15.9 acres and preservation of 25.6 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 an increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100241, Draft EIS--440 pages and maps, Appendices--831 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage 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/754908068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-25&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 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 24 of 41] 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 - 873131260; 14391-0_0024 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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131246; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131237; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 4 of 41] 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 - 873131223; 14391-0_0004 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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131147; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131139; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131139?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131134; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131129; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131128; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131117; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131117?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 29 of 41] 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 - 873131114; 14391-0_0029 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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131110; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131109; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 22 of 41] 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 - 873131098; 14391-0_0022 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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131094; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131083; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131080; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 12 of 41] 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 - 873131068; 14391-0_0012 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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 19 of 41] 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 - 873131066; 14391-0_0019 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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131050; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131047; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131031; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873131030; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873131030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873129077; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873129077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873129044; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873129044?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873129041; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873129041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873129016; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873129016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 33 of 41] 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 - 873128992; 14391-0_0033 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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873128973; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873128961; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873128900; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873128887; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873128877; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873128861; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873128844; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873128820; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873128801; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873128801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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 41] 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 - 873127828; 14391-0_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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/873127828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 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. AN - 754907381; 14391 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. The Phase 4b Project 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 draft EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, an adjacent 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 $8.2 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: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, 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: 100240, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--197 pages and maps/CD-ROM, Draft EIS--772 pages and maps/CD-ROM, June 24, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports 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 - 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/754907381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-24&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Simultaneous Removal of Perchlorate and Energetic Compounds in Munitions Wastewater by Zero-Valent Iron and Perchlorate Respiring Bacteria T2 - 103rd Annual Conference & Exhibition of The Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA 2010) AN - 839659887; 5898259 JF - 103rd Annual Conference & Exhibition of The Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA 2010) AU - Kim, B AU - Cha, D Y1 - 2010/06/22/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 22 KW - {Q1} KW - Perchlorate KW - Wastewater KW - Iron KW - Perchloric acid KW - Waste water KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839659887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=103rd+Annual+Conference+%26+Exhibition+of+The+Air+%26+Waste+Management+Association+%28A%26WMA+2010%29&rft.atitle=Simultaneous+Removal+of+Perchlorate+and+Energetic+Compounds+in+Munitions+Wastewater+by+Zero-Valent+Iron+and+Perchlorate+Respiring+Bacteria&rft.au=Kim%2C+B%3BCha%2C+D&rft.aulast=Kim&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=103rd+Annual+Conference+%26+Exhibition+of+The+Air+%26+Waste+Management+Association+%28A%26WMA+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.awma.org/ACE2010/files/9563section3.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Cumulative Interactions for Military Vehicle Impact Assessment T2 - 2010 Annual International Meeting of American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers AN - 839708464; 5946248 JF - 2010 Annual International Meeting of American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers AU - Koch, Daniel AU - Howard, H AU - Svendsen, N Y1 - 2010/06/20/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 20 KW - {Q1} KW - Impact analysis KW - Military KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839708464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2010+Annual+International+Meeting+of+American+Society+of+Agricultural+and+Biological+Engineers&rft.atitle=Cumulative+Interactions+for+Military+Vehicle+Impact+Assessment&rft.au=Koch%2C+Daniel%3BHoward%2C+H%3BSvendsen%2C+N&rft.aulast=Koch&rft.aufirst=Daniel&rft.date=2010-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+International+Meeting+of+American+Society+of+Agricultural+and+Biological+Engineers&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.asabemeetings.org/10AIM-Prog.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABILITATION EVALUATION STUDY, REACH 1A LANDSIDE REHABILITATION, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, MARTIN AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES, FLORIDA (THIRD DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF JULY 2005). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABILITATION EVALUATION STUDY, REACH 1A LANDSIDE REHABILITATION, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, MARTIN AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES, FLORIDA (THIRD DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF JULY 2005). AN - 873129159; 14382-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Major renovations to a 4.9-mile-long segment of the 143-mile-long Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee, Martin and Palm Beach counties, Florida are proposed. The renovation of Reach 1A is part of a major rehabilitation program for the HHD which was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests between 1910 and 1920 to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s, and major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that the probability of a failure of the dike in Reach 1A is 45 percent when lake stages are 17.2 feet and 100 percent when lake stages are 20 feet. This supplemental EIS assesses refinements and modifications to the final rehabilitation plan for Reach 1A recommended in the final EIS of July 2005. Modifications would include: extension of the seepage berm beyond the existing right-of-way, backfilling of the existing toe ditch, installation of a drainage swale at the toe of the seepage berm along the full length of Reach 1A, installation of relief wells in the southern portion of Reach 1A, removal of Culvert 11, and replacement of Culvert 16 using modern construction practices. Construction is planned to begin in 2011 and end in 2013. The estimated cost of constructing the recommended plan is $63.8 million. Estimated real estate cost is $1.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction and rehabilitation of Reach 1A would reduce the risk of a failure in the dike and provide flood risk management for lake elevations up to 25 feet. The overall rehabilitation project, of which the proposal at hand is one component, would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat within the floodplain controlled by the HHD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would require acquisition of 47.2 acres of private and public lands. Long-term effects would include filling wetlands and the loss of Palm Beach County's Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail/Northeast Everglades Natural Area trailhead. Filling in the existing HDD toe ditch in Reach 1A would adversely affect the foraging and loafing habitat for wading birds. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-858) and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 and 05-0696F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100231, Volume I--188 pages and maps, Volume II--340 pages, June 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1948, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABILITATION+EVALUATION+STUDY%2C+REACH+1A+LANDSIDE+REHABILITATION%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+MARTIN+AND+PALM+BEACH+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28THIRD+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2005%29.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABILITATION+EVALUATION+STUDY%2C+REACH+1A+LANDSIDE+REHABILITATION%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+MARTIN+AND+PALM+BEACH+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28THIRD+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2005%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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABILITATION EVALUATION STUDY, REACH 1A LANDSIDE REHABILITATION, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, MARTIN AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES, FLORIDA (THIRD DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF JULY 2005). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABILITATION EVALUATION STUDY, REACH 1A LANDSIDE REHABILITATION, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, MARTIN AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES, FLORIDA (THIRD DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF JULY 2005). AN - 873129138; 14382-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Major renovations to a 4.9-mile-long segment of the 143-mile-long Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee, Martin and Palm Beach counties, Florida are proposed. The renovation of Reach 1A is part of a major rehabilitation program for the HHD which was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests between 1910 and 1920 to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s, and major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that the probability of a failure of the dike in Reach 1A is 45 percent when lake stages are 17.2 feet and 100 percent when lake stages are 20 feet. This supplemental EIS assesses refinements and modifications to the final rehabilitation plan for Reach 1A recommended in the final EIS of July 2005. Modifications would include: extension of the seepage berm beyond the existing right-of-way, backfilling of the existing toe ditch, installation of a drainage swale at the toe of the seepage berm along the full length of Reach 1A, installation of relief wells in the southern portion of Reach 1A, removal of Culvert 11, and replacement of Culvert 16 using modern construction practices. Construction is planned to begin in 2011 and end in 2013. The estimated cost of constructing the recommended plan is $63.8 million. Estimated real estate cost is $1.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction and rehabilitation of Reach 1A would reduce the risk of a failure in the dike and provide flood risk management for lake elevations up to 25 feet. The overall rehabilitation project, of which the proposal at hand is one component, would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat within the floodplain controlled by the HHD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would require acquisition of 47.2 acres of private and public lands. Long-term effects would include filling wetlands and the loss of Palm Beach County's Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail/Northeast Everglades Natural Area trailhead. Filling in the existing HDD toe ditch in Reach 1A would adversely affect the foraging and loafing habitat for wading birds. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-858) and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 and 05-0696F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100231, Volume I--188 pages and maps, Volume II--340 pages, June 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1948, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABILITATION+EVALUATION+STUDY%2C+REACH+1A+LANDSIDE+REHABILITATION%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+MARTIN+AND+PALM+BEACH+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28THIRD+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2005%29.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABILITATION+EVALUATION+STUDY%2C+REACH+1A+LANDSIDE+REHABILITATION%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+MARTIN+AND+PALM+BEACH+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28THIRD+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2005%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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABILITATION EVALUATION STUDY, REACH 1A LANDSIDE REHABILITATION, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, MARTIN AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES, FLORIDA (THIRD DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF JULY 2005). AN - 754909003; 14382 AB - PURPOSE: Major renovations to a 4.9-mile-long segment of the 143-mile-long Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee, Martin and Palm Beach counties, Florida are proposed. The renovation of Reach 1A is part of a major rehabilitation program for the HHD which was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests between 1910 and 1920 to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s, and major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that the probability of a failure of the dike in Reach 1A is 45 percent when lake stages are 17.2 feet and 100 percent when lake stages are 20 feet. This supplemental EIS assesses refinements and modifications to the final rehabilitation plan for Reach 1A recommended in the final EIS of July 2005. Modifications would include: extension of the seepage berm beyond the existing right-of-way, backfilling of the existing toe ditch, installation of a drainage swale at the toe of the seepage berm along the full length of Reach 1A, installation of relief wells in the southern portion of Reach 1A, removal of Culvert 11, and replacement of Culvert 16 using modern construction practices. Construction is planned to begin in 2011 and end in 2013. The estimated cost of constructing the recommended plan is $63.8 million. Estimated real estate cost is $1.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction and rehabilitation of Reach 1A would reduce the risk of a failure in the dike and provide flood risk management for lake elevations up to 25 feet. The overall rehabilitation project, of which the proposal at hand is one component, would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat within the floodplain controlled by the HHD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would require acquisition of 47.2 acres of private and public lands. Long-term effects would include filling wetlands and the loss of Palm Beach County's Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail/Northeast Everglades Natural Area trailhead. Filling in the existing HDD toe ditch in Reach 1A would adversely affect the foraging and loafing habitat for wading birds. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-858) and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 and 05-0696F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100231, Volume I--188 pages and maps, Volume II--340 pages, June 18, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1948, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-18&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=471&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+American+Dietetic+Association&rft.issn=00028223&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 816527038; 14379-100228_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of State Road 23 (SR 23) between the cities of Fond du Lac and Plymouth in Fond du Lac and Sheboygan counties, Wisconsin is proposed. The study corridor begins at US 151 Fond du Lac Bypass, and extends approximately 19 miles eastward to County Road P in Sheboygan County. The existing SR 23 two-lane roadway has 1.3 miles of adequate concrete pavement and 17.3 miles of bituminous pavement that is exhibiting signs of distress. Six build alternatives following three alignments and a No Build Alternative were considered in a draft EIS of November 2004. The supplemental draft EIS of December 2009 addressed new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives. The preferred build alternative (Alternative 1) would involve construction of a full four-lane divided highway on the existing alignment for the full length of the project. From US 151 to County Road UU, a suburban cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and an 18-foot median with mountable curb. From County Road UU east to County Road P, an expressway cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and a 60-foot median. An extension of the Old Plank Trail would be constructed from the town of Greenbush to the Prairie Trail in Fond du Lac. A series of local roads and interchanges would be constructed to improve highway mobility and safety. The preferred alternative would implement corridor preservation at key intersections on SR 23 for future interchanges and overpasses. Two corridor preservation alternatives and the preferred No Corridor Preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also presented. Estimated total construction costs in year-of-expenditure dollars for the preferred build alternative, including the connection roads and interchanges and the Old Plank Trail are $139.7 million. Corridor preservation costs for SR 23 are estimated at $49.0 million. Corridor preservation cost estimates for US 151/SR 23 range from $50.3 million to $71.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would preserve the corridor for future transportation needs and provide safe and efficient transportation between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan to serve present and long-term traffic needs. The new facility would provide additional capacity within the corridor, enhancing community mobility and supporting economic development in east-central Wisconsin. The system link between the backbone routes US 41 and Interstate 43 would be completed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the preferred alternative would require of 212 acres of land and would result in the displacement of 14 residences, one businesses, 14 farms, and 32 acres of wetlands. The connection roads and interchanges component of the project would require 97 acres of right-of-way and would displace nine residences, and four businesses. The Old Plank Trail component of the project would require 102 acres of new right-of-way and would displace 12 acres of wetlands. The corridor preservation alternatives would require additional acreage at the time transportation improvements are implemented. The project would affect habitat for federal protected species and encroach on floodplains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0139D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100228, Final EIS--429 pages and maps, Appendices--460 pages and maps, June 17, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-F KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails 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/816527038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+23%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+TO+PLYMOUTH%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+AND+SHEBOYGAN+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+23%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+TO+PLYMOUTH%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+AND+SHEBOYGAN+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 816527012; 14379-100228_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of State Road 23 (SR 23) between the cities of Fond du Lac and Plymouth in Fond du Lac and Sheboygan counties, Wisconsin is proposed. The study corridor begins at US 151 Fond du Lac Bypass, and extends approximately 19 miles eastward to County Road P in Sheboygan County. The existing SR 23 two-lane roadway has 1.3 miles of adequate concrete pavement and 17.3 miles of bituminous pavement that is exhibiting signs of distress. Six build alternatives following three alignments and a No Build Alternative were considered in a draft EIS of November 2004. The supplemental draft EIS of December 2009 addressed new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives. The preferred build alternative (Alternative 1) would involve construction of a full four-lane divided highway on the existing alignment for the full length of the project. From US 151 to County Road UU, a suburban cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and an 18-foot median with mountable curb. From County Road UU east to County Road P, an expressway cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and a 60-foot median. An extension of the Old Plank Trail would be constructed from the town of Greenbush to the Prairie Trail in Fond du Lac. A series of local roads and interchanges would be constructed to improve highway mobility and safety. The preferred alternative would implement corridor preservation at key intersections on SR 23 for future interchanges and overpasses. Two corridor preservation alternatives and the preferred No Corridor Preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also presented. Estimated total construction costs in year-of-expenditure dollars for the preferred build alternative, including the connection roads and interchanges and the Old Plank Trail are $139.7 million. Corridor preservation costs for SR 23 are estimated at $49.0 million. Corridor preservation cost estimates for US 151/SR 23 range from $50.3 million to $71.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would preserve the corridor for future transportation needs and provide safe and efficient transportation between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan to serve present and long-term traffic needs. The new facility would provide additional capacity within the corridor, enhancing community mobility and supporting economic development in east-central Wisconsin. The system link between the backbone routes US 41 and Interstate 43 would be completed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the preferred alternative would require of 212 acres of land and would result in the displacement of 14 residences, one businesses, 14 farms, and 32 acres of wetlands. The connection roads and interchanges component of the project would require 97 acres of right-of-way and would displace nine residences, and four businesses. The Old Plank Trail component of the project would require 102 acres of new right-of-way and would displace 12 acres of wetlands. The corridor preservation alternatives would require additional acreage at the time transportation improvements are implemented. The project would affect habitat for federal protected species and encroach on floodplains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0139D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100228, Final EIS--429 pages and maps, Appendices--460 pages and maps, June 17, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-F KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails 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/816527012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1991-05-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=193&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Current+problems+in+pediatrics&rft.issn=00459380&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 - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 816526944; 14379-100228_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of State Road 23 (SR 23) between the cities of Fond du Lac and Plymouth in Fond du Lac and Sheboygan counties, Wisconsin is proposed. The study corridor begins at US 151 Fond du Lac Bypass, and extends approximately 19 miles eastward to County Road P in Sheboygan County. The existing SR 23 two-lane roadway has 1.3 miles of adequate concrete pavement and 17.3 miles of bituminous pavement that is exhibiting signs of distress. Six build alternatives following three alignments and a No Build Alternative were considered in a draft EIS of November 2004. The supplemental draft EIS of December 2009 addressed new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives. The preferred build alternative (Alternative 1) would involve construction of a full four-lane divided highway on the existing alignment for the full length of the project. From US 151 to County Road UU, a suburban cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and an 18-foot median with mountable curb. From County Road UU east to County Road P, an expressway cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and a 60-foot median. An extension of the Old Plank Trail would be constructed from the town of Greenbush to the Prairie Trail in Fond du Lac. A series of local roads and interchanges would be constructed to improve highway mobility and safety. The preferred alternative would implement corridor preservation at key intersections on SR 23 for future interchanges and overpasses. Two corridor preservation alternatives and the preferred No Corridor Preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also presented. Estimated total construction costs in year-of-expenditure dollars for the preferred build alternative, including the connection roads and interchanges and the Old Plank Trail are $139.7 million. Corridor preservation costs for SR 23 are estimated at $49.0 million. Corridor preservation cost estimates for US 151/SR 23 range from $50.3 million to $71.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would preserve the corridor for future transportation needs and provide safe and efficient transportation between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan to serve present and long-term traffic needs. The new facility would provide additional capacity within the corridor, enhancing community mobility and supporting economic development in east-central Wisconsin. The system link between the backbone routes US 41 and Interstate 43 would be completed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the preferred alternative would require of 212 acres of land and would result in the displacement of 14 residences, one businesses, 14 farms, and 32 acres of wetlands. The connection roads and interchanges component of the project would require 97 acres of right-of-way and would displace nine residences, and four businesses. The Old Plank Trail component of the project would require 102 acres of new right-of-way and would displace 12 acres of wetlands. The corridor preservation alternatives would require additional acreage at the time transportation improvements are implemented. The project would affect habitat for federal protected species and encroach on floodplains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0139D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100228, Final EIS--429 pages and maps, Appendices--460 pages and maps, June 17, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-F KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails 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/816526944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+23%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+TO+PLYMOUTH%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+AND+SHEBOYGAN+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+23%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+TO+PLYMOUTH%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+AND+SHEBOYGAN+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 816526932; 14379-100228_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of State Road 23 (SR 23) between the cities of Fond du Lac and Plymouth in Fond du Lac and Sheboygan counties, Wisconsin is proposed. The study corridor begins at US 151 Fond du Lac Bypass, and extends approximately 19 miles eastward to County Road P in Sheboygan County. The existing SR 23 two-lane roadway has 1.3 miles of adequate concrete pavement and 17.3 miles of bituminous pavement that is exhibiting signs of distress. Six build alternatives following three alignments and a No Build Alternative were considered in a draft EIS of November 2004. The supplemental draft EIS of December 2009 addressed new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives. The preferred build alternative (Alternative 1) would involve construction of a full four-lane divided highway on the existing alignment for the full length of the project. From US 151 to County Road UU, a suburban cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and an 18-foot median with mountable curb. From County Road UU east to County Road P, an expressway cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and a 60-foot median. An extension of the Old Plank Trail would be constructed from the town of Greenbush to the Prairie Trail in Fond du Lac. A series of local roads and interchanges would be constructed to improve highway mobility and safety. The preferred alternative would implement corridor preservation at key intersections on SR 23 for future interchanges and overpasses. Two corridor preservation alternatives and the preferred No Corridor Preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also presented. Estimated total construction costs in year-of-expenditure dollars for the preferred build alternative, including the connection roads and interchanges and the Old Plank Trail are $139.7 million. Corridor preservation costs for SR 23 are estimated at $49.0 million. Corridor preservation cost estimates for US 151/SR 23 range from $50.3 million to $71.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would preserve the corridor for future transportation needs and provide safe and efficient transportation between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan to serve present and long-term traffic needs. The new facility would provide additional capacity within the corridor, enhancing community mobility and supporting economic development in east-central Wisconsin. The system link between the backbone routes US 41 and Interstate 43 would be completed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the preferred alternative would require of 212 acres of land and would result in the displacement of 14 residences, one businesses, 14 farms, and 32 acres of wetlands. The connection roads and interchanges component of the project would require 97 acres of right-of-way and would displace nine residences, and four businesses. The Old Plank Trail component of the project would require 102 acres of new right-of-way and would displace 12 acres of wetlands. The corridor preservation alternatives would require additional acreage at the time transportation improvements are implemented. The project would affect habitat for federal protected species and encroach on floodplains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0139D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100228, Final EIS--429 pages and maps, Appendices--460 pages and maps, June 17, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-F KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails 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/816526932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+23%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+TO+PLYMOUTH%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+AND+SHEBOYGAN+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+23%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+TO+PLYMOUTH%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+AND+SHEBOYGAN+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 816526919; 14379-100228_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of State Road 23 (SR 23) between the cities of Fond du Lac and Plymouth in Fond du Lac and Sheboygan counties, Wisconsin is proposed. The study corridor begins at US 151 Fond du Lac Bypass, and extends approximately 19 miles eastward to County Road P in Sheboygan County. The existing SR 23 two-lane roadway has 1.3 miles of adequate concrete pavement and 17.3 miles of bituminous pavement that is exhibiting signs of distress. Six build alternatives following three alignments and a No Build Alternative were considered in a draft EIS of November 2004. The supplemental draft EIS of December 2009 addressed new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives. The preferred build alternative (Alternative 1) would involve construction of a full four-lane divided highway on the existing alignment for the full length of the project. From US 151 to County Road UU, a suburban cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and an 18-foot median with mountable curb. From County Road UU east to County Road P, an expressway cross section would include four 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders, and a 60-foot median. An extension of the Old Plank Trail would be constructed from the town of Greenbush to the Prairie Trail in Fond du Lac. A series of local roads and interchanges would be constructed to improve highway mobility and safety. The preferred alternative would implement corridor preservation at key intersections on SR 23 for future interchanges and overpasses. Two corridor preservation alternatives and the preferred No Corridor Preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also presented. Estimated total construction costs in year-of-expenditure dollars for the preferred build alternative, including the connection roads and interchanges and the Old Plank Trail are $139.7 million. Corridor preservation costs for SR 23 are estimated at $49.0 million. Corridor preservation cost estimates for US 151/SR 23 range from $50.3 million to $71.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would preserve the corridor for future transportation needs and provide safe and efficient transportation between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan to serve present and long-term traffic needs. The new facility would provide additional capacity within the corridor, enhancing community mobility and supporting economic development in east-central Wisconsin. The system link between the backbone routes US 41 and Interstate 43 would be completed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the preferred alternative would require of 212 acres of land and would result in the displacement of 14 residences, one businesses, 14 farms, and 32 acres of wetlands. The connection roads and interchanges component of the project would require 97 acres of right-of-way and would displace nine residences, and four businesses. The Old Plank Trail component of the project would require 102 acres of new right-of-way and would displace 12 acres of wetlands. The corridor preservation alternatives would require additional acreage at the time transportation improvements are implemented. The project would affect habitat for federal protected species and encroach on floodplains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0139D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100228, Final EIS--429 pages and maps, Appendices--460 pages and maps, June 17, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-F KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails 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/816526919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+23%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+TO+PLYMOUTH%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+AND+SHEBOYGAN+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+23%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+TO+PLYMOUTH%2C+FOND+DU+LAC+AND+SHEBOYGAN+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 299 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133216; 14366-4_0299 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 299 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133181; 14366-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 297 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133157; 14366-4_0297 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 297 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133157?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 296 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133130; 14366-4_0296 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 296 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133113; 14366-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133072; 14366-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 373 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133013; 14366-4_0373 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 373 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 371 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132950; 14366-4_0371 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 371 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132945; 14366-4_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 370 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132915; 14366-4_0370 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 370 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 369 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132882; 14366-4_0369 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 369 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132839; 14366-4_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132839?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 386 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132805; 14366-4_0386 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 386 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132774; 14366-4_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 314 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132746; 14366-4_0314 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 314 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132733; 14366-4_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 310 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132717; 14366-4_0310 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 310 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 294 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132706; 14366-4_0294 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 294 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Science&rft.atitle=Winning+coalitions+for+climate+policy&rft.au=Meckling%2C+Jonas%3BKelsey%2C+Nina%3BBiber%2C+Eric%3BZysman%2C+John&rft.aulast=Meckling&rft.aufirst=Jonas&rft.date=2015-09-11&rft.volume=349&rft.issue=6253&rft.spage=1170&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Science&rft.issn=00368075&rft_id=info:doi/10.1126%2Fscience.aab1336 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 275 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132683; 14366-4_0275 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 275 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132678; 14366-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 329 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132663; 14366-4_0329 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 329 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 274 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132651; 14366-4_0274 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 274 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 328 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132632; 14366-4_0328 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 328 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 323 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132606; 14366-4_0323 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 323 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132606?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 171 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132549; 14366-4_0171 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 171 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132533; 14366-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 318 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132522; 14366-4_0318 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 318 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132515; 14366-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 170 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132508; 14366-4_0170 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 170 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 304 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132454; 14366-4_0304 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 304 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132454?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132451; 14366-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 168 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132427; 14366-4_0168 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 168 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 289 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132417; 14366-4_0289 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 289 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 167 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132381; 14366-4_0167 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 167 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132379; 14366-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132379?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132359; 14366-4_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132339; 14366-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 220 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132296; 14366-4_0220 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 220 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132288; 14366-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 425 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132277; 14366-4_0425 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 425 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 414 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132267; 14366-4_0414 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 414 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 279 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132262; 14366-4_0279 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 279 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132240; 14366-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 173 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132235; 14366-4_0173 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 173 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 286 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132219; 14366-4_0286 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 286 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132219?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 366 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132200; 14366-4_0366 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 366 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 204 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132195; 14366-4_0204 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 204 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 201 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132171; 14366-4_0201 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 201 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 409 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132155; 14366-4_0409 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 409 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 270 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132138; 14366-4_0270 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 270 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 405 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132129; 14366-4_0405 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 405 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132125; 14366-4_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 271 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132111; 14366-4_0271 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 271 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132106; 14366-4_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 354 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132104; 14366-4_0354 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 354 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 163 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132096; 14366-4_0163 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 163 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 174 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132085; 14366-4_0174 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 174 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 180 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132082; 14366-4_0180 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 180 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 113 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132056; 14366-4_0113 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 113 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 162 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132044; 14366-4_0162 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 162 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132044?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 164 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132043; 14366-4_0164 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 164 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 346 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132039; 14366-4_0346 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 346 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132030; 14366-4_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 160 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132006; 14366-4_0160 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 160 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 235 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131991; 14366-4_0235 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 235 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 397 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131938; 14366-4_0397 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 397 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 415 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131935; 14366-4_0415 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 415 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 185 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131928; 14366-4_0185 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 185 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 339 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131908; 14366-4_0339 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 339 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 348 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131798; 14366-4_0348 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 348 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 192 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131782; 14366-4_0192 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 192 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131782?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 127 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131771; 14366-4_0127 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 127 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 345 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131743; 14366-4_0345 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 345 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 126 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131735; 14366-4_0126 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 126 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 321 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131726; 14366-4_0321 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 321 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 347 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131720; 14366-4_0347 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 347 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 108 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131622; 14366-4_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 108 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 261 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131617; 14366-4_0261 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 261 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 115 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131604; 14366-4_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 115 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 258 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131579; 14366-4_0258 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 258 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131579?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 266 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131506; 14366-4_0266 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 266 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 253 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131500; 14366-4_0253 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 253 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 412 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131479; 14366-4_0412 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 412 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 252 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131476; 14366-4_0252 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 252 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 251 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131459; 14366-4_0251 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 251 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 355 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131440; 14366-4_0355 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 355 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 158 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131425; 14366-4_0158 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 158 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131425?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131332; 14366-4_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 245 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131325; 14366-4_0245 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 245 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 233 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131316; 14366-4_0233 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 233 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 148 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131307; 14366-4_0148 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 148 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 248 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131300; 14366-4_0248 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 248 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 146 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131265; 14366-4_0146 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 146 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 423 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131264; 14366-4_0423 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 423 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 153 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131245; 14366-4_0153 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 153 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 228 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131210; 14366-4_0228 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 228 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 140 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131174; 14366-4_0140 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 140 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131166; 14366-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 247 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131163; 14366-4_0247 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 247 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 147 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131151; 14366-4_0147 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 147 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 176 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131135; 14366-4_0176 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 176 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 94 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131119; 14366-4_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 94 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131071; 14366-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131053; 14366-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 139 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131029; 14366-4_0139 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 139 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 71 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131004; 14366-4_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 121 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131002; 14366-4_0121 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 121 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 391 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130999; 14366-4_0391 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 391 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 254 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130975; 14366-4_0254 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 254 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 380 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130971; 14366-4_0380 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 380 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 331 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130960; 14366-4_0331 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 331 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 118 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130957; 14366-4_0118 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 118 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 93 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130944; 14366-4_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 93 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 156 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130933; 14366-4_0156 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 156 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 100 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130922; 14366-4_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 100 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 308 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130920; 14366-4_0308 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 308 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 325 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130914; 14366-4_0325 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 325 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 65 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130910; 14366-4_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 89 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130900; 14366-4_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 89 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 155 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130874; 14366-4_0155 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 155 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 82 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130818; 14366-4_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 82 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 66 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130814; 14366-4_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 316 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130803; 14366-4_0316 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 316 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 80 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130768; 14366-4_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 80 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 63 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130747; 14366-4_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 59 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130688; 14366-4_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 379 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130678; 14366-4_0379 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 379 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 84 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130668; 14366-4_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 84 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 402 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130578; 14366-4_0402 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 402 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130569; 14366-4_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 73 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130564; 14366-4_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 392 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130528; 14366-4_0392 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 392 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 218 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130513; 14366-4_0218 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 218 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 102 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130499; 14366-4_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 102 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 217 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130466; 14366-4_0217 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 217 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 332 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130464; 14366-4_0332 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 332 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130415; 14366-4_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 177 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130191; 14366-4_0177 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 177 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 211 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130163; 14366-4_0211 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 211 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 112 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130110; 14366-4_0112 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 112 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 122 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130101; 14366-4_0122 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 122 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 408 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130040; 14366-4_0408 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 408 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 114 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129937; 14366-4_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 114 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 110 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129856; 14366-4_0110 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 110 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 137 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129742; 14366-4_0137 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 137 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 243 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129684; 14366-4_0243 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 243 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 330 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129657; 14366-4_0330 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 330 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129657?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 128 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129550; 14366-4_0128 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 128 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 404 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129391; 14366-4_0404 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 404 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 327 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129335; 14366-4_0327 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 327 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 124 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129103; 14366-4_0124 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 124 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 242 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129091; 14366-4_0242 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 242 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 407 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129038; 14366-4_0407 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 407 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 134 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129028; 14366-4_0134 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 134 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 239 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128989; 14366-4_0239 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 239 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 337 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128938; 14366-4_0337 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 337 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 131 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128922; 14366-4_0131 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 131 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 135 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128873; 14366-4_0135 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 135 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 92 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128872; 14366-4_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 92 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 96 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128807; 14366-4_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 96 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 381 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128039; 14366-4_0381 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 381 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 79 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128037; 14366-4_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 79 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128012; 14366-4_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 97 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127799; 14366-4_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 97 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 77 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127717; 14366-4_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 77 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 85 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127190; 14366-4_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 85 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127190?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754909089; 14366 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed RMPD would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include: construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion of certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP would protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The SCP would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and the 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cukoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0149D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100224, Volume I through Volume III--Revised Draft EIS and Comments/Responses, Volumes IV through VII--Appendices, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -